Final Report from the Before-And-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

Hampton Roads Transit July 1, 2015 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...... 3 2.0 Physical Scope of the Project ...... 5 Actual Outcome ...... 5 Accuracy of Predictions ...... 10 3.0 Capital Costs of the Project ...... 13 Actual Outcomes ...... 13 Accuracy of Predictions ...... 14 Conclusions ...... 19 Lessons Learned ...... 20 4.0 Transit Service Levels ...... 20 Actual Outcomes ...... 20 Conclusions ...... 28 5.0 Operations and Maintenance Costs ...... 28 Actual Outcomes ...... 28 Accuracy of Predictions ...... 28 Lessons Learned ...... 30 6.0 Ridership ...... 30 Lessons Learned ...... 35 7.0 Farebox Revenues ...... 35 8.0 LRT’s Role in Station Area Development ...... 37 Purpose of the Analysis ...... 37 Actual Station Area Development ...... 37 Station Area Development Attributable to LRT ...... 37 Planned Developments That Have Not Been Constructed ...... 38 Conclusion ...... 38 9.0 Parking ...... 38 Purpose of the Analysis ...... 38 Lessons Learned ...... 41 10.0 Traffic ...... 41 Purpose of the Analysis ...... 41 Actual Outcomes ...... 41 11.0 Summary ...... 43

i | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Physical Scope Appendix B: Capital Costs Appendix C: Service Levels Appendix D: Operations & Maintenance Appendix E: Ridership Appendix F: Land Use & Development Appendix G: Parking Appendix H: Traffic

ii |Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

1.0 Introduction The Tide Light Rail project is a 7.3-mile Light Rail Transit (LRT) line connecting the Eastern Virginia Medical Center (EVMC) complex east through downtown Norfolk to Newtown Road at the Norfolk-Virginia Beach border. The project was developed and built, and is now operated, by Hampton Roads Transit (HRT). It is the first light rail line in the Hampton Roads area.

Early History of Norfolk Tide Tidewater Regional Transit (TRT), one of the two predecessor agencies of Hampton Roads Transit (HRT), completed several system planning studies, a Major Investment Study and a Draft, Supplemental Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements of a major transit improvement for the Hampton Roads area. Previous studies included: Systems Planning Studies • Study of the Cost Effectiveness of Restoring Passenger Rail Service, May 1986 • Rail Systems Analysis and Fixed Guideway Service Plan, Sept 1991

Major Investment Study • Norfolk-Virginia Beach Corridor Major Investment Study, 1997

Environmental Impact Statements • Norfolk-Virginia Beach Light Rail Transit System East/West Corridor Project, Draft Environmental impact Study, 1999 • Norfolk-Virginia Beach Light Rail Transit System East/West Corridor Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, March, 2000 • Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project, Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, January 2003 • Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Final environmental Impact Statement, October 2005

The Major Investment Study utilized and built upon results from past planning efforts in evaluating the feasibility of implementing various transit alternatives and documented the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative of an 18-mile light rail transit system running between downtown Norfolk and the Virginia Beach oceanfront. The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 18 mile project was issued in March, 2000. The modification of the Norfolk-Virginia Beach alignment was necessitated by a decision of the Virginia Beach City Council to withdraw from the bi-city agreement concerning the proposed LRT project. This decision was made as a result of a November 2, 1999 city-wide non-binding referendum in which the outcome of the election indicated an unwillingness of the citizens of Virginia Beach to permit the development of light rail in their city. In February, 2000 the City Council of Norfolk adopts a resolution to move forward with the development of light rail transit entirely within the boundaries of the city. The preparation of the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement is initiated.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 3 The Tide Light Rail Project

Key milestone dates in project development were:

Milestone Dates in Project Development Milestone Date Entry into Preliminary Engineering November 4, 2002 Entry into Final Design September 2006 Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) October 2007 Revenue service August 29, 2011

Before-and-After Studies HRT received partial funding for the project through a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Federal transit law requires any transit agency that receives project funding through an FFGA to complete a Before-and-After Study for the project. These studies have two purposes: first to document the actual outcomes of each project and second to evaluate the accuracy of the predicted outcomes prepared by the transit agency during the planning and development of the project. The studies must consider five outcomes of the project: physical scope, capital cost, impacts on transit services, consequences for transit-system operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, and the resulting ridership response. HRT has chosen to add four other topics to the actual outcomes considered in this study: farebox revenues, land use and development, parking, and traffic.

To understand the actual outcomes on the physical scope and capital costs of the project, the study examines the as-built scope of the project and near-final capital costs soon after the opening of the project. To understand the impacts on transit service, O&M costs, and ridership, the analysis compares the actual outcomes after project opening to actual conditions before the project was built. The “after” milestone for this analysis is typically two years after project opening – a timeframe that permits the transit agency to complete service adjustments and ridership to settle into new patterns in response to the project. For the Tide light rail project, the “before” milestones are typically the first three Project Development milestones shown in the table above, and the “after” milestone varies across the outcomes that have been evaluated, but is typically 2013 data.

To evaluate the accuracy of the predictions, the study compares the predictions made at key milestones in project development to the actual outcomes, identifies the sources of any significant differences, and suggests any lessons learned.

This final report has nine additional sections, one for each of the nine project characteristics. Each chapter first documents the actual outcome of the project as of 2013 (with some variations). The first six chapters then evaluate the accuracy of outcomes predicted at entry into preliminary engineering (PE), entry into final design (FD), and the FFGA. The remaining three chapters (land use, parking, and traffic) do not undertake this evaluation because no forecasts were made for these characteristics during project development.

The report has nine appendices that provide additional detail on the analysis for each of the nine project characteristics.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 4 The Tide Light Rail Project

2.0 Physical Scope of the Project Actual Outcome The Tide LRT project began revenue operations on August 29, 2011. The Tide typically operates for 17 hours Monday through Thursday, 18 hours on Friday and Saturday, and 10 hours on Sunday, utilizing six light rail vehicles (LRV) during peak periods. Table 4 in Appendix A: Physical Scope summarizes the as-built physical scope and the predicted physical scope at Entry into PE, Entry into Final Design, and the FFGA. The following sections describe the elements of the project organized by FTA’s standard cost categories (SCC). The categories relevant to physical scope are as follows: • SCC 10: Guideway and Track Elements • SCC 20: Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal • SCC 30: Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administrative Buildings • SCC 40: Sitework & Special Conditions • SCC 50: Systems • SCC 60: ROW, Land, Existing Improvements • SCC 70: Vehicles Figure 2.1 2013 Tide Alignment and Stations

Source: HRT

Guideway and Track Elements (SCC 10) The as-built project consists of a 7.34-mile, double-tracked light rail system with a reserved transit corridor by operating agreement in the downtown portion of the alignment and a dedicated right-of-way (ROW) on abandoned Norfolk Southern Railroad ROW from Norfolk State University (NSU) Station to Newtown Road Station. The project is single-tracked for short distances heading into the western and eastern terminal stations. A short portion of the alignment (0.2 miles) on Charlotte and Bute Streets are on shared lanes with vehicular traffic and not on dedicated ROW.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 5 The Tide Light Rail Project

approximately 1.3 route miles of guideway is semi-exclusive, and 0.21 route miles is mixed-use. Aerial structure was constructed for a total of approximately 1.17 route miles in length at three creek crossings (Smith Creek, Broad Creek, Moseley Creek), two active Norfolk Southern freight crossings, and three roadway crossings (Park Avenue, Claiborne Avenue, and Brambleton Avenue). Retained fill sections total approximately 0.22 route miles and primarily occur in the areas adjacent to I-264 between Lambert’s Point railroad crossing and the Brambleton Avenue Bridge adjacent to Norfolk University. Other minor segments of retained fill are located primarily at bridge approaches.

Track Subcategories - Six categories of track were utilized for the as-built project: direct fixation, embedded, ballasted, open deck, full-depth crossing, and special trackwork. Full-depth crossing is similar to ballasted track and open deck is similar to direct fixation; as these categories are not listed in the FTA SCC, they have been included in the lengths for ballasted and open deck track, respectively. Direct fixation track was used for approximately 0.36 track miles on the aerial structures of the project. Open deck track was also used on aerial structures, in the amount of approximately 1.98 track miles. Embedded track was utilized in the Norfolk Central Business District (CBD) in the amount of approximately 3.03 track miles. Ballasted track, in the amount of approximately 8.75 track miles, was used along the abandoned Norfolk Southern corridor, between York Street/Freemason Station, along Brambleton Avenue heading toward EVMC/Fort Norfolk Station, and in the Norfolk Tide Facility (NTF).

Stations (SCC 20) The as-built light rail facility has 11 stations, each having a covered platform shelter with bench seating, space for two ticket vending machines, and ADA ramp access. All stations incorporate a metal clad wood- frame shelter with sectioned glazing, a gable roof, special tubular steel railings, globe lighting, and an information kiosk. Nine stations have one-car platforms, the MacArthur Station was built with two-car platforms, and the lone aerial station was built as a two-car platform, but designed to accommodate three. Table 2.1 summarizes the station characteristics of the constructed project. Specific station elements are described in more detail in Appendix A: Physical Scope.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 6 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 2.1 As-Built Station Characteristics Station Platform Type Station Profile Bus Bays Parking EVMC/Fort Norfolk Side At grade 2* 250* Station York Street/Freemason Side At grade None None Station Monticello Station Center At grade None None MacArthur Square Side At grade None None Station Civic Plaza Station Side At grade 1*** None Harbor Park Station Center At grade None 176 NSU Station Center Aerial None** None Ballentine/Broad Creek 2 (and 1 passenger Side At grade 105 Station drop-off area) Ingleside Road Station Side At grade None On-street^ Military Highway Side At grade 2 232 Station Newtown Road Station Center At grade 3 266 Source: URS, HRT, 2014. *EVMC/Fort Norfolk Station: Two bus bays were installed after project completion by the city, not at project cost; Parking only available M-TH 6:00 p.m.-11:59 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Friday until 11:59 p.m. Sunday **NSU Station as funded by the project did not include any bus bays, however, two bus bays were installed in 2013 by the City of Norfolk. ***An existing HRT bus stop already was located at St. Paul’s Blvd. and Plume St. to provide transfer service to the LRT. ^On-street parking reserved for area residents only

Support Facilities (SCC 30) The Norfolk Tide Facility (NTF) is located just east of NSU Station on a parcel that encompasses approximately seven acres of land. The facility houses light rail vehicle maintenance, rail operations/dispatch, and the Operations Control Center (OCC).The NTF also serves as an operator relief point along the mainline. The NTF has the following yard tracks: Y-1E, Y-1W, Y-2, Y-3, Y-3 Future, Y-4, and L- 1. The maintenance shop is approximately 28,000 square feet and includes a two-bay vehicle wash. The site includes 60 parking spaces. A second maintenance facility, Mangrove Maintenance Facility, is being leased to house systems maintenance and provide warehouse storage for maintenance of way material and spare parts. This additional facility was required when it was determined that routine systems and other right-of- way maintenance would not be contracted, but handled by internal forces.

The shop building structure is a steel frame structure with full brick facing and a number of architectural features (e.g., decorative roof cupolas) intended to visually integrate the building with the adjacent Norfolk State University campus. The vehicle maintenance functions of the shop were designed to be minimal, consistent with an original operating plan for contract vehicle maintenance. This was not the case, however, and the as-built shop includes equipment consistent with typical light vehicle maintenance, such as wheel presses, floor level traction power (“stingers”), and portable vehicle lifts. These items were procured during the construction phase of the project.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 7 The Tide Light Rail Project

concrete platform that was needed due to delays in the construction of the vehicle maintenance facility and yard. The LRT vehicles were scheduled to be delivered to the yard, but the yard construction was 18 months behind schedule. A temporary spur track was constructed to connect the mainline NSRR freight tracks with a temporary LRT maintenance building, and HRT was able to arrange the LRT vehicles to be delivered by train. The building and spur track were initially intended to be temporary, but HRT decided to keep them both. Minor upgrades to the spur track were completed to make the track permanent, and the building remains in use post project implementation as a covered storage facility.

Sitework and Special Conditions (SCC 40) Hazardous Materials and Contaminated Soil Removal/Mitigation- The former Kirn Library building was demolished for the construction of MacArthur Square Station. The demolition required asbestos abatement techniques to be utilized. Two other asbestos-contaminated buildings adjacent to the library site were also demolished for the station. The demolition work included the removal of contaminated soil and two underground storage tanks (UST), one at Kirn Library and one at the Baylor building. Two USTs on the site of Newtown Road Station and three tanks at Bollard’s Chicken at NSU Station were also removed as part of the project.

Wetlands Mitigation- Wetlands mitigation for the project consisted of constructing a 2.8-acre wetland on a site formerly used by the City of Norfolk for construction waste disposal along the eastern branch of the Elizabeth River, adjacent to a Norfolk neighborhood called Grandy Village. The mitigation was required due to project impacts to wetlands along the corridor, and the constructed wetlands resulted in a net gain of wetland area.

Pedestrian Bridge- A path from the existing pedestrian bridge over I-264 near the shop and yard was constructed around the yard and shop and a pathway provided to Brambleton Avenue so that it could maintain its functionality while not interfering with rail operations.

Utility Relocations/Protection- Utility relocations for the project consisted of three different relocation categories: utilities on public property but not public ROW, utilities within Norfolk Southern ROW, and utilities within the Central Business District (CBD). CBD utilities were relocated at no cost to the project, as these utilities fell under the City of Norfolk’s franchise agreement. CBD utilities required a new duct bank system rather than just typical relocation activities, because the utilities downtown were old and had been modified to the point that relocation was not an option. All utility relocations on public property east of Harbor Park did not fall under the franchise agreement and thus were paid for by the project. Relocations of Dominion Virginia electrical distribution line poles within the Norfolk Southern ROW were also required and paid for by the project. The complexities and effort associated with the types of relocations needed in the Norfolk Southern ROW were not adequately understood and thus the necessary time was not incorporated into the project schedule. This resulted in construction delays.

Existing Freight Bridge over Broad Creek- The existing freight bridge over Broad Creek was removed for the LRT project. The as-built construction includes a new double track structure with all former wood piles removed.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 8 The Tide Light Rail Project

Systems (SCC 50) Traction Power Substations- Seven 1.0 megawatt (MW) capacity TPSS (Traction Power Substation) facilities were constructed for the project. Table 2.2 provides descriptions of the locations of the TPSS facilities as constructed. Three TPSSs were constructed with building facades to mitigate adverse visual impacts: 2nd Street (TPSS #1), York Street (TPSS #2), and Newtown Road (TPSS #7). The need to mitigate these impacts was identified early in the planning process and included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

Table 2.2 As-Built TPSS Locations TPSS Location Engineering Station Location Description TPSS #1 South side of tracks, east Second Street 119+00 of Second Street TPSS #2 North side of tracks, York Street Station 141+90 across from station TPSS #3 Holt Street under the I- Holt Street 235+25 264 structure TPSS #4 VMSF 262+85 West of shop building TPSS #5 East of I-264 at western Sewell’s Point Bridge 327+25 base of bridge TPSS #6 East of Corporate Blvd., north side of tracks Military Highway Station 430+00 across from station on Curlew Drive TPSS #7 Eastern terminus, Newtown Road Station 492+00 eastern end of station Source: Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project As-Built Drawings, January 2008.

The project also includes a communication system and an operations control center (OCC). The OCC is located in the shop building and it houses a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system on a fiber optic network that allows the controllers to see the locations of the trains in the signalized territory between NSU Station and Newtown Road Station and allows communication and administrative control between the TPSS facilities and the OCC.

Crossing Protection- The as-built project includes a number of safety features that were added shortly before or shortly after revenue operations began as a result of an operational hazards analysis (OHA) that was conducted by HRT. Additional fencing, crossing gates, sidewalk railings, signage, and barriers were added along the project to prevent pedestrians from entering the ROW and to prevent incidents between trains and personal vehicles.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 9 The Tide Light Rail Project

Right-of-Way and Land (SCC 60) The project required 157 acquisitions and easements in total, of which 21 were full acquisitions, 29 were partial acquisitions, 35 were permanent easements, 18 were permanent subsurface easements, and 54 were temporary construction easements. Nine residential and eight business relocations were required, for a total of 17 relocations. All necessary right-of-way documents were platted and recorded as part of the project work.

Vehicles (SCC 70) Nine Siemens S70 low-floor light rail vehicles were procured for the Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project. Six one-car trains operate along the mainline during peak periods, leaving three vehicles as spares. The spare vehicles are required for operations during special events such as Norfolk’s HarborFest and Grand Illumination.

Accuracy of Predictions The Physical Scope Technical Memorandum, included as Appendix A: Physical Scope to this report, summarizes the as-built scope of The Tide LRT Project and the anticipated scope of the project at three predictive milestones: Entry into PE, Entry into Final Design, and the FFGA. The memo also identifies how well the as-built project was predicted at the three milestones.

Analysis of the project’s physical scope across the milestones revealed that the overall project was generally well-predicted. No significant alignment or profile changes occurred over the course of project planning. General No significant alignment or profile station locations remained constant across milestones, changes occurred over the course of although three station sites and one park-and-ride lot location project planning. changed after the FFGA was executed due to the availability of the planned parcels for the original sites. Table 2.3 presents a comparison of an abbreviated selection of as-built scope specifications of The Tide LRT Project with the predicted outcomes for each scope item at Entry into Preliminary Engineering (PE), Entry into Final Design, and the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) milestones. The comparison is organized by FTA SCC. A table which includes all SCC line items is included in Appendix A: Physical Scope.

The most significant changes in the physical scope of the project were related to the Systems category (SCC 50). Adding a signaling system from east of Harbor Park Station to Newtown Road Station, an Operations Control Center (OCC), improved LRT/roadway downtown traffic signal priority coordination, and a robust communications system after the FFGA was executed are the key changes to the physical scope of the project.

The majority of other changes also occurred post-FFGA, and many occurred during construction. Primary changes in this category include a complete revision of all station shelter and platform railing designs; the addition of the Newtown Road Operator’s restroom and brick building facades for the Norfolk Tide Facility (NTF); a change to black-colored overhead catenary system (OCS) poles in downtown Norfolk; a change to red-colored surface concrete in embedded track in downtown Norfolk; a non-revenue siding track; a significant increase in hazard mitigation signage, fencing, and barriers; the addition of visual screening along the tracks adjacent to I-264; and the deletion of proposed missile screens on roadways over the LRT with no pedestrian access.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 10 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 2.3 The Tide Physical Scope Milestone Comparison FTA Standard Cost Category (SCC) Unit Actual Entry into Entry into FFGA (After) PE FD 10 GUIDEWAY and TRACK ELEMENTS 10.02 Guideway: At grade, semi-exclusive TF 59,668 - 60,639 60,639 10.10 Track: Embedded TF 16,088 - 15,828 15,828 10.11 Track: Ballasted TF 47,985 - 49,136 49,136 10.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) EA 15 0 14 14 10.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening Noise dampening – wayside rail lubricators EA 10 0 0 0 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL 20.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform Shelters EA 18 16 16 16 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 30.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Bldg. EA 1 0 0 0 30.05 Yard and Yard Track Yard track TF 6,414 0 5,734 5,734 Turnouts (No. 8 Turnouts) EA 9 0 0 9 Parking area SP 69 0 0 60 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork AC 61.22 0 63.47 63.47 40.05 Site Structures, including Retaining Walls, EA 2 0 1 2 Sound Walls 40.06 Pedestrian/Bike Access and Accommodation, Landscaping Station Pedestrian Access (Ramps, 2 per EA 30 - 32 32 platform) Station Bike Access (Bike racks on concrete EA 12 0 0 0 pads) 40.07 Automobile, Bus, Van Access Ways, SP 603 824 598 598 including Roads, Parking Lots, Park-and-Ride Spaces 40.08 Temporary Facilities and Other Indirect EA 1 0 0 0 Costs During Construction 50 SYSTEMS 50.01 Train Control and Signals LF 15,840 0 0 0 50.02 Traffic Signals and Crossing Protection Total crossings (pedestrian and/or vehicle) EA 87 - - - Traffic signals EA 45 - - - Crossing protection (Flashers and Gates) EA 15 - - - 50.05 Communications System 1 0 0 0 50.06 Fare Collection System and Equipment EA 25 - - 25 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 60.01 Purchase or Lease of Real Estate Full acquisitions EA 21 - - >10 Partial acquisitions EA 29 - - -

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 11 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 2.3 The Tide Physical Scope Milestone Comparison FTA Standard Cost Category (SCC) Unit Actual Entry into Entry into FFGA (After) PE FD Permanent easements EA 35 - - - Permanent subsurface easements EA 18 - - - Temporary construction easements EA 54 - - - 60.02 Relocation of Existing Households and Businesses Residential relocations EA 9 - 7 7 Business relocations EA 8 - 3 3 70 VEHICLES 70.06 Non-revenue vehicles EA 2 0 0 0 70.07 Spare Parts Maintenance-of-way spare parts 1 0 0 0 Source: URS, HRT, 2014. The following paragraphs describe the major physical scope changes in The Tide LRT Project. Additional detail on the physical scope of the project is provided in Appendix A: Physical Scope.

Stations (SCC 20) The general station locations predicted in the FFGA accurately anticipated the as-built locations, however specific siting of the stations differed in the case of EVMC Station and Military Highway Station. EVMC Station as constructed is approximately 300 feet shorter than it was planned to be at the FFGA stage. HRT was not able to acquire all the land necessary for construction of the station as planned, therefore it had to be shortened and moved. The as-built platform is 450 feet east of the FFGA location. Due to this change, the single track at the western terminus was extended beyond the planned length and a switch was moved east of Colley Avenue. The as-built switch location is 600 feet east of the location in the FFGA. Additionally, no bus bays or shelters at the EVMC Station were accounted for in the FFGA, but the City decided to build two bus bays with funds from the City’s capital budget. Two bus shelters were built at project cost to accompany the bus bays.

The Military Highway Park-and-Ride was constructed in a different location than was identified in the FFGA. A categorical exclusion (CE) was prepared for this change. The parking lot was identified in the FFGA on the south side of the alignment and south of Curlew Drive. Due to development on the identified parcel before HRT was able to acquire it, the planned park-and-ride had to be moved to a new location. The location chosen was on the north side of Curlew Drive and north of the station platform, and that is where the parking lot was ultimately constructed.

Support Facilities (SCC 30) The Vehicle Storage and Maintenance Facility (VSMF) was planned in the FFGA to be constructed south of NSU and east of Brambleton Avenue, in an area of land between I-264 and the NSU campus. The facility was planned to accommodate nine vehicles but would be able to be expanded to accommodate up to 16. The facility would also include a vehicle wash. The building would have a footprint of approximately 23,000 square feet and an upper mezzanine storage area of 4,800 square feet. The yard, yard track, stormwater

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 12 The Tide Light Rail Project

management and drainage facilities, and all other necessary items for the yard were also included in this category.

The VSMF predicted in the FFGA did not accurately anticipate the as-built maintenance facility, called the Norfolk Transit Facility (NTF), due to the following changes occurring after the FFGA was executed: the addition of the OCC, upgrades to the planned façade of the building, and an increase in parking capacity. Addition of the OCC did not change the footprint of the building, however the addition did require some interior spaces to be reconfigured. The shop building plan was changed from a pre-fabricated metal building to a building with a brick façade. The foundation plans had to be changed to accommodate the new building façade plans. The footprint and the interior design of the building were not altered by the change to a brick façade.

Systems (SCC 50) Line-of-sight operation was planned for the project in the FFGA, so the FFGA scope does not include a signaling system, except for three sets of localized track signals: lockouts at EVMC and Newtown Road approaches and an island circuit in the yard at the shop entrance. Light rail signal priority was planned along the downtown portion of the alignment, except at the intersections of Charlotte and Boush Streets and St. Paul’s Boulevard at Government Center Plaza. Crossing protection for six gated crossings and signal prioritization equipment for the remaining crossings were planned and included in this category.

The signaling and communications plan in the FFGA did not accurately anticipate the as-built systems for the project due to changes that occurred after the FFGA was executed. One of the largest scope changes of the project occurred under SCC 50. It was determined after the FFGA was executed that line-of-sight operation would not be adequate from a safety perspective and that a signaling system would be required for safety reasons. After the FFGA was issued and before construction began, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation reviewed the project plans and determined that line-of-sight operation east of Downtown would be unsafe. The Commonwealth of Virginia mandated installation of a train signaling system, communication system, and an operations control center. A system was designed as a design-build project so as to minimize the delay to the rest of the project. Additionally, the SCADA planned in the FFGA was simpler than what was ultimately installed, due to the change from line-of-sight operations to signalized operations and the addition of the OCC.

3.0 Capital Costs of the Project Actual Outcomes The final recognized capital costs of The Tide were $315,755,511. This figure, finalized in 2014, accounts for all SCC’s for the project, including Professional Services and Finance Charges. This final capital cost recognized in the After constructed condition is significantly different than the otherwise relatively consistent predictions made during the Entry into PE, Entry into FD, and FFGA milestones, which varied between $198 and $235 million.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 13 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 3.1 Actual Cost by FTA Standard Cost Category Actual (millions) Percent Opening Date August 2011 Actual Cost in Year of Expenditure $ $315,755,511 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS $83.3 26.6% 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL $1.0 0.3% 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS $12.3 3.9% 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS $55.9 17.9% 50 SYSTEMS $34.4 11.0% 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS $15.9 5.1% 70 VEHICLES $36.0 11.5% 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $76.8 23.7% 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $ - - 100 FINANCE CHARGES $ 0.05 0% TOTAL PROJECT COST $315.8 100%

Accuracy of Predictions The predicted capital costs at the project-development milestones reflected variations in the physical scope of the project, estimated unit prices for project components, base-year dollar valuations, anticipated schedules for project construction, and anticipated future inflation rates. Table 3.2 transforms both the predicted and the actual total costs of the project in several ways in order to permit direct comparisons of the predictions. The analysis relies on the Engineering News Record historical index of construction costs for construction-dollar valuations over time.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 14 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 3.2 Predicted and Actual Total Capital Costs – Constant Year Dollars Predictions Entry Entry Cost Measure Actual FFGA into PE into FD (2006) (2003) (2006) Constant Dollars (millions) Total capital cost in 2003 constant dollars $242.6 $182.0 ------Total capital cost in 2006 constant dollars $281.0 --- $213.6 --- Total capital cost in 2006 constant dollars $281.0 ------$210.8 Inflation Dollar-weighted mid-point of project expenditures Jun09 Nov05 Jun08 Jun08 Opening year Aug11 Dec07 Jan10 Jan10 Inflation effects compared to 2003 constant dollars 29.6% 9.0% ------Inflation effects compared to 2006 constant dollars 12.0% --- 10.2% --- Inflation effects compared to 2006 constant dollars 12.0% ------10.1% Year-of-Expenditure (YOE) Dollars (millions) Total capital cost in YOE dollars $314.6 $198.3 $235.3 $232.1 Predicted minus actual total capital cost in YOE dollars --- -$119.6 -$79.3 -$82.5 -- component attributable to scope/unit-cost differences --- -$65.0 -$74.2 -$77.2 -- component attributable to inflation-rate differences --- -$14.2 $3.8 $3.7 -- component attributable to schedule differences --- -$40.5 -$8.8 -$9.0

The “constant dollar” section of the table focuses on the base-year cost predictions prepared by HRT at each milestone. Constant-dollar predictions are the first step in cost estimation – a step that temporarily ignores inflation effects and states the predicted cost in dollars valued in the year the prediction was made. The table shows that the predicted costs ranged from $182.0 million in 2003 dollars at PE-entry to $213.6 million in 2006 dollars at FD-entry to $210.8 million in 2006 dollars at the FFGA (FFGA is dated 2007 but calculated in 2006 dollars). Constant-dollar entries in the “Actual” column transform the actual $314.6 million total cost of the project from its year-of-expenditure (YOE) dollars to its equivalent cost in constant dollars. These equivalent actual costs are lower because dollars valued in 2003 and 2006 had not been subject to as much inflation as dollars spent to build the project in 2007 through 2011; so, it would have required fewer of those dollars to build the project. Comparison of predicted and actual costs in these constant-dollar terms shows that the predictions consistently underestimated the actual costs: by 25 percent at PE-entry ($182.0 million versus $242.6 million), 24 percent at FD-entry, and 25 percent at the FFGA.

The “inflation” section of the table then examines the costs that inflation added to the predicted and actual costs of the project. Inflation results from the combined effects of two influences: (1) the time that elapses between a cost estimate and actual expenditures on the project, and (2) the annual rates of inflation that erode construction-dollar values over that time. The table shows that the predictions at each milestone underestimated the time that would be needed for development, construction, and opening of the project to service. The underestimated length of the construction period, plus underestimated inflation rates, led to predicted inflation effects that were lower than actual inflation, particularly at PE-entry – a prediction of 9.0 percent added by inflation effects to the constant-dollar cost estimate compared to 29.6 percent added in the actual outcome.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 15 The Tide Light Rail Project

Finally, the “year-of-expenditure dollars” section of the table combines the constant-dollar estimates and the inflation estimates and compares them to the actual $314.6 million cost of the project in YOE dollars. The predictions underestimated actual YOE costs by $119.6 million (38 percent) at PE-entry, $79.3 million (25 percent) at FD-entry, and $82.5 million (26 percent) at the FFGA. At PE-entry, most of the underestimate was caused by underestimates of project scope and/or unit costs of its components ($65.0 million of the $119.6 million total underestimate, or 54 percent). Inflation effects – underestimates of actual inflation rates and the construction schedule – combined to cause the remaining 46 percent of the underestimate. At the later milestones, the contributions of inflation effects largely disappeared: anticipated annual rates of inflation turned out to be higher than actual rates and the anticipated construction schedule was much closer to the actual schedule. Consequently, underestimates of scope and unit costs were the causes of essentially the entire underestimates at FD-entry and the FFGA.

To identify the sources of these underestimates, Table 3.3 compares predicted costs to actual costs for the individual SCC categories. The table translates all costs into 2006 dollars in order to exclude inflation effects and focus on the underlying scope and unit-cost elements of the base-year-dollar predictions.

Table 3.3 Actual and Predicted Expenditures Converted to FFGA Base-year Dollars (2006)(millions) Predictions at Project-Development Milestones Actual STANDARD COST CATEGORY Entry into PE Entry into FD FFGA Cost Cost Diff. Cost Diff. Cost Diff. 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS $75.8 $56.7 -$19.1 $52.0 -$23.9 $52.0 -$23.9 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS * $0.9 $9.1 $8.2 $5.2 $4.3 $5.2 $4.3 30 SUPPORT: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. $11.3 $12.7 $1.3 $15.4 $4.1 $15.4 $4.1 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS $50.9 $23.2 -$27.2 $12.5 -$38.4 $12.5 -$38.4 50 SYSTEMS $30.7 $27.6 -$3.1 $25.6 -$5.1 $25.6 -$5.1 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS $14.5 $11.3 -$3.1 $10.5 -$4.0 $10.5 -$4.0 70 VEHICLES $32.7 $31.7 -$1.0 $36.8 $4.0 $33.4 $0.7 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $71.8 $38.6 -$33.1 $40.8 -$31.0 $40.8 -$31.0 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0 $10.0 100 FINANCE CHARGES $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4.9 $4.8 $4.9 $4.8 Total $288.7 $210.9 $-77.8 $213.6 $-75.2 $210.2 -$78.5

* This total for actual station costs clearly has some errors. Many actual costs of stations are thought to be misclassified into the actual costs for SCC 40.

The last line in the table confirms that the difference between predicted and actual costs in constant dollar terms remained largely constant across the project-development milestones: -$71.8 million, $-75.2 million, and -$78.5 million. The large majority of these differences occur in SCCs 10, 20, 40, and 80. SCC20 (stations) is included only because some actual costs for stations were misclassified during project construction into SCC 10. Consequently, the causes of the predicted-versus-actual cost differences apparently occurred in these cost categories. The scope section above examined the differences in project scope across the milestones. Consequently, the discussion here simply highlights the key scope differences that drove the constant-dollar cost differences in these key categories.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 16 The Tide Light Rail Project

When accounting for inflation and schedule impacts by reviewing data in 2006 constant year dollars, the pre-construction predictions of total project costs are 21% to 23% below the final recognized project costs. The predicted total construction costs of the Tide were relatively consistent through the PE, Entry into FD, and FFGA conditions, maintaining many of the base assumptions made prior to Entry into PE for the entire design process. Constructions costs exceeded However, once construction began, construction costs expectations due to increased significantly exceeded predictions, primarily due to increased scope, change orders, and impacts scope, change orders, and impacts to the construction schedule. to the construction schedule. Additionally, both HRT and consultant construction management team members appear to have been inconsistent with coding charges to SCC codes. Due to unfamiliarity or misunderstanding, these inaccuracies have resulted in some confusion when assessing inaccuracies of predictions made at preconstruction milestones. Many of these inaccuracies are noted below.

Discussions below are generalized to compare the preconstruction milestone estimates to the After condition. This is due to the consistency of cost predictions in the engineering phase milestones, and the lack of change in system assumptions. Some poor assumptions, such as the need for a communications system for train operations, were ultimately proven to be incorrect. Many of these assumptions persisted throughout design and were only rectified during the construction phase, resulting in the consistency of preconstruction estimates. Therefore, the information below describes the differences in preconstruction and Actual costs.

Table 3.4 provides the actual project costs in year of expenditure (YOE) and 2006 constant year dollars, organized by SCC, as compared to the other milestones. These values are investigated further below, with commentary on variances and circumstances encountered during project development and construction. Additional information concerning the summary discussions below is described in greater detail in Appendix B: Capital Costs.

SCC 10: Cost predictions remained consistent through design milestone estimates at between $52 and $56.7 million. The physical scope of the track elements remained mostly consistent between predicted and actual conditions in general; however, several items were coded to this category, including approximately $10 million for traction power substation (TPSS) units and some smaller value for civil work associated with SCC 20. The remaining difference between the predictions and the realized costs (base year value of $75.8 million) appears to be approximately $14 million. While project delays and change orders with respect to utilities and right-of-way affected the SCC 10 total, the primary reasons for the discrepancy appear to be attributable to construction costs associated with SCC 10.01 – At-Grade Exclusive Right-of-Way and SCC 10.04 – Aerial Structures. Contract prices for SCC 10.01 exceeded the predictions by nearly $20 million, and for bridge structures exceeded estimated values on larger lump sum structure items by nearly $9 million in 2006 base-year dollars. Several other subcategories of this SCC were lower than predicted accounting for the different in summary values presented here. Consequently, project delays and change orders resulting from unexpected utility relocations, accompanied by right-of-way acquisition, were the primary drivers of the SCC 10 variances.

SCC 20: As noted above, predictions for SCC 20 were consistently predicted through preconstruction milestones, and then dramatically under-ran those predictions during construction. This difference in predicted versus actual values, estimated around $4 million, is likely due to miscoding of the costs during implementation of a few of the construction contracts. It is suspected that the majority of the site work costs for station areas, including grading, concrete curbs, platforms, and similar items, were captured under

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 17 The Tide Light Rail Project

SCC 40, with some minor amount potentially being assigned to SCC 10 subcategories. Some station locations and configurations were adjusted during construction, and station furnishings (shelter, handrails, etc.) were changed at the request of the City of Norfolk, which resulted in higher-than-predicted costs. However, these overruns appear to have been minimal. It is suspected that the After value of SCC 20 was close to the predicted value of between $ 4 and $5 million, rather than the surprisingly low value of under $1 million documented here.

SCC 40: Actual capital costs for SCC 40 greatly exceed the predicted values from the pre-construction milestones. The primary reason for these inaccurate predictions appears to be attributed to bid and change order costs resulting from schedule delays, utility conflicts, and environmental efforts. SCC 40 costs for utility relocations in the downtown area were significantly underestimated, and did not sufficiently include costs for new services required for the Tide. Asbestos mitigation costs incurred for the demolition of the Kirn Library were not sufficiently included in preconstruction predictions. Combined, utility conflicts and asbestos mitigation resulted in over one year in project construction schedule delays. Also as noted above, SCC 40 inherited approximately $4 million in costs from SCC 20 and potentially minor costs from other SCC’s as well. Other minor costs to install various civil elements modified or added for local stakeholders also are attributed to this SCC. At the conclusion of the project, these additional costs for environmental and utility complications, combined with the various additional costs also noted here, overran predicted values by $38.4 million – nearly four times the predicted preconstruction cost for this SCC.

SCC 50: Preconstruction estimates for SCC 50 ranged from $25.6 to $27.6 million, which appear to predict the After value of $30.7 million relatively well. However, this similarity in prediction versus outcome is likely circumstantial as $10 million in TPSS costs were mis-assigned to SCC 10. The design assumed that the LRT system could function with line-of-sight operations. This base assumption, made during value engineering efforts prior to Entry into PE, proved to be inaccurate during construction, and a simple communications system, fiber optic duct bank, and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems were added to the project at the direction of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT). Additionally, fare collection costs were assigned to SCC 70 – Vehicles, rather than this SCC. When accounting for these discrepancies, it is estimated that SCC 50 exceeded the predicted cost by approximately $10 million rather than the $3 to $5 million noted in Table 3.3 above.

SCC 80: Predictions for Professional Services costs were very consistent through the pre-construction milestones, varying between $31 and $33.1 million. The After cost for this SCC in 2006 dollars was $71.8 million. The majority of these costs were attributed to Final Design, Project Management for Design and Construction, and Construction Administration and Management. HRT was heavily dependent on consultant expertise and support during nearly all phases of the project, meaning this SCC was particularly susceptible to increases resulting from schedule delays, contractor change orders, and project extensions. Design additions and changes during construction also contributed to the under-estimations seen in the pre-construction milestone values.

SCC’s 90 and 100: Of little impact to the overall project cost, but of important note, is the role of Unallocated Contingency and Financing Costs. The pre-construction milestone estimates assumed only a small amount of Unallocated Contingency, typically 5% of the project cost. This low amount of contingency proved to be insufficient for the added items and modified designs implemented during the construction of the Tide. Conversely, the Tide incurred only negligible Financing Costs during the project.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 18 The Tide Light Rail Project

General Discussion Several items and details described above as being added or addressed during construction, such as the train communications system in SCC 50, resulted in unpredicted costs to the project. However, several of these items were originally envisioned as parts of the project prior to the Entry into PE milestone but were removed from the scope as part of a value engineering exercise. Responding to recommendations from and working with FTA regional representatives in 2001 and 2003, HRT reduced the scope of the project to improve the Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) value, in turn eliminating some of the items ultimate required by review and oversight agencies such as DRPT.

It should be noted that the Tide project was still ultimately competitive with respect to project cost. As the Tide is the first segment of light rail transit for HRT in the area, capital costs for the project cannot be compared to other system segments. Calculating the project costs on a per mile basis, the Tide is cost- competitive with other systems:

Cost Per Mile of System The Tide – Norfolk, 2011 (with maintenance facility and vehicles) $43.3 million / mile The Tide – Norfolk, 2011 (without maintenance facility or vehicles) $37.5 million / mile Blue Line Light Rail – Charlotte, 2007 $42 million / mile DART – Dallas, 2010 $46 million / mile

As noted in the SCC descriptions above, several items appear to have been unresolved during the design process but ultimately included in the constructed project. Adjustments and enhancements to project designs, such as station requirements, city ordinances, and building codes, all affected the project costs, specifically SCC’s 20 and 40. Right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation efforts occurred in large part during the construction phase, slowing project progress. Greater stakeholder coordination, and thorough incorporation of stakeholder concerns, may have increased the predicted project costs, but could also have resulted in a more accurate prediction with respect to these items.

In an effort to identify potential challenges ahead of construction, HRT did develop and maintain a Risk Management Plan throughout the design process and into construction. In 2006, the plan did identify some of the primary issues previously noted, such as asbestos mitigation in the Kirn Library building, the need to review station finishes with the City of Norfolk and SHPO, and concerns about the elevator at the Norfolk State University Station. In the first year of construction (2008), the Risk Register identified $10 million in potential additional costs.

Conclusions Assumptions incorporated in the cost forecasts through each phase of project development were based on the best information available at the time and served as justifiable estimates in the Tide Light Rail financial plan; however, some key factors dramatically affected the construction cost and schedule. The predicted physical scope of the project did not significantly change through the course of the pre-construction milestones. Despite this consistency, portions of the project scope did change during the construction phase to the cost of the project. Many of the cost variations during construction can be attributed to three factors: schedule delays and claims, the addition of physical scope items during construction, and project documentation and controls. These and other lessons learned are described below, in detail in a letter from HRT to FTA dated December 17, 2012, and also included in the Project Management Plan, Revised December 19, 2012.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 19 The Tide Light Rail Project

Lessons Learned Schedule: The project construction schedule greatly exceeded the duration predicted in design. Possible mitigation of schedule challenges could include development and maintenance of a master project schedule that monitors the progress of all contracts and contractors from receipt of FFGA to completion of Maintenance of a master project construction. Additionally, addressing project unknowns schedule may have mitigated ahead of construction through advanced Utility Relocation schedule overruns. contracts and by purchasing of right-of-way and easements could have addressed or mitigated project delay issues. HRT is committed to actively monitoring program schedules in a holistic manner on all future work.

Design Scope versus Constructed Infrastructure: Several project items appear to have been unresolved during the design process but included in the constructed project after FFGA, resulting in changes during the construction phase and contributing to the inaccuracies of cost predictions. Major assumptions made before Entry into PE Inaccurate cost-cutting for the purpose of reducing project capital costs, such as assumptions made before Entry removal of a train signaling system and operational control into PE accounted for the largest center, were later proven to be overreaching, requiring items to discrepancy between actual and be reinserted into the project during construction. These predicted capital costs. reintroduced items, accompanied by other items added during construction, account for the largest amount of discrepancy between actual and predicted capital costs. Continued oversight from FTA, open communication with stakeholders and oversight agencies, and a thorough response to identified potential risks could have provided a more accurate prediction of the actual costs incurred on the Tide. HRT is committed to sharing project details, including base assumptions, designs, and budgets, with stakeholders throughout the design and construction phases of future projects, in an effort to identify and address scope and capital costs issues before they become an issue.

Project Documentation and FTA Requirements: Both the HRT internal staff and consultant team struggled with FTA documentation requirements and strict adherence to the FFGA. The resulting construction documentation resulted in some confusion in monitoring capital costs during project execution and in post- construction accounting. As a lesson learned, and in an effort to mitigate this issue on future projects, HRT intends to pursue Unfamiliarity with FTA improved oversight and specific direction from FTA, specifically documentation requirements led to with respect to base assumptions made at the beginning of the some confusion monitoring capital project. HRT has already expanded staff resources to include costs. experience in the construction of major transit corridors in order to better vet base project assumptions while bringing familiarity with FTA processes and FFGA requirements. With expanded in-house resources and FTA involvement, HRT will be able to efficiently direct their consultant team and effectively manage future projects.

4.0 Transit Service Levels Actual Outcomes The Tide operates seven days per week with spans of service and headways between trains that are designed to meet ridership demand. Table 4.1 summarizes these service characteristics.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 20 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 4.1 The Tide Service Spans and Headways, 2013 Early Morning Late Night Service Day Span of Service Peak Off-Peak (Before 6:30 am M-F (after 10:00 pm) or 9:00 am Sat.) Mon-Thurs 6:00 am - 11:00 pm 10 min. 15 min. 15 min. 30 min. Friday 6:00 am - 12:00 am 10 min. 15 min. 15 min. 30 min. Saturday 6:00 am - 12:00 am N/A 15 min. 30 min. 30 min. Sunday 11:00 am - 9:00 pm N/A 15 min. N/A N/A Notes: - Weekday peak periods are 6:30 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:30 PM to 7:00 PM. - Early morning is before 6:30 AM on weekdays and before 9:00 AM on Saturdays. - Late night is after 10:00 PM.

End-to-end running time on the Tide is approximately 26 minutes, including dwell times at stations, for an average speed of approximately 16.3 mph. With layovers at the terminal stations, the total round trip running time is 60 minutes. Six one-car trains provide service during peak periods; four one-car trains provide service at all other times. On an average weekday, the Tide operates a total of 90 revenue hours covering 1,158 revenue miles. Annually, HRT provides a total of 29,249 revenue hours and 377,097 revenue miles of LRT service (assuming 253 regular/weekday schedules, 57 Saturday schedules and 55 Sunday schedules operated in 2013).

Table 4.2 summarizes the bus connections that are available at eight of the Tide’s 11 stations. HRT made 21 service changes between the August 2011 initiation of light rail service and the August 2013 “after” milestone to integrate the Tide into the bus system. In general, the adjustments were minor and involved two kinds of changes to these connecting routes: • Minor adjustments to the existing route so that it could stop at a nearby station; and • Expanded hours of service early and late in the day to provide bus connections throughout the Tide’s daily schedule. The table notes two exceptions to these minor adjustments: an existing route that was truncated at the Newtown Road rail station and several new routes that were implemented to provide feeder service to the Tide’s terminal stations. Other changes to bus routes made during this timeframe related to the relocation of the Cedar Grove transfer center to the DNTC. Appendix C: Service Levels discusses these changes. From west to east, adjustments for buses connecting at each station are:

• At the EVMC/Ft. Norfolk station, the western terminus of the new rail line, route 2 from Naval Station Norfolk now serves the EVMC/Ft. Norfolk Station. Route 16 is a new feeder service from the north serving Old Dominion University. Route 23 is an east-west service that roughly parallels the Tide on Princess Anne Avenue, approximately one mile north of the rail alignment; the route now has its western terminus at the rail station. Route 44 crosses the Elizabeth River from Portsmouth and stops at the station on its way to the Downtown Norfolk Transit Center (DNTC).

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 21 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 4.2 Bus Connections at Rail Stations, 2013 Station Connecting Bus Routes EVMC/Ft. Norfolk 2, 162, 23, 44 York Street/ Freemason none Monticello 1, 3 MacArthur Square none Civic Plaza/ Government Center 6, 8, 17, 45, 960, 961 Harbor Park none NSU 9, 13, 18 Ballentine 18 Ingleside Road none Military Highway 15, 23, 967 Newtown Road 20, 222, 25, 271, 282 Notes: 1 – Existing route truncated at the rail station 2 – New feeder route

• In downtown Norfolk, 16 bus routes from throughout the region converge at the Downtown Norfolk Transit Center (DNTC). Eight of these routes also circulate throughout downtown and make easy connections to the Tide at either the Civic Plaza/Government Center or the Monticello station. Connections at those two stations make bus-rail connections at MacArthur Square – the third downtown station – unnecessary. • No bus routes connect to the Tide at its Harbor Park station. • Mid-corridor at the NSU and Ballentine stations, HRT made minor adjustments to establish connections to three routes – the 9, 13, and 18 – already serving the area. Routes 9 and 18 originate north of the rail alignment and run south to connections with the Tide before proceeding west into downtown Norfolk. Route 13 originates to the south in Portsmouth, crosses the Elizabeth River to a connection at the NSU station, and then also proceeds into downtown Norfolk. • There are no bus routes that connect at the Ingleside Road station due to the inability to turn buses around within the small footprint of that station area. • At the Military Highway station, HRT made minor adjustments to three very different existing bus routes to connect them to the rail line. Route 15 is a “crosstown” route on Military Highway serving areas both north and south of the Elizabeth River. Route 23 is an east-west route that parallels the Tide roughly one mile to the north on Princess Anne Avenue between the bus route’s eastern terminus at the Military Highway station and its western terminus at the EVMC/Ft. Norfolk station. Route 967 now has its eastern terminus at the rail station, crosses the Elizabeth River to reach its former eastern terminus at the Indian River park-and-ride lot, and then proceeds west and north through Chesapeake and Portsmouth to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel to a terminus in Newport News. • The Newtown Road station has the largest number of bus connections because it is the eastern terminus of the rail line and is without the geographic limits on its service area that water bodies impose on the western terminus at the EVMC/Ft. Norfolk station. Routes 20 and 28 provide service from the oceanfront in Virginia Beach to the Tide, largely along Virginia Beach Boulevard. The Route 20 connection is a modest detour from the route’s long itinerary from Virginia Beach to

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 22 The Tide Light Rail Project

downtown Norfolk. In contrast, Route 28 is a new skip-stop feeder service that terminates at the Newtown Road station. Existing routes 25 and 27 serve areas southeast and northeast of the station, respectively. HRT adjusted the routing of existing route 25 to stop at the station on its way to its terminus at the Military Circle Mall transit center and made a minor adjustment to terminate route 27 at the station rather than its previous terminus at the Military Circle Mall transit center. Finally, HRT added route 22 as a new feeder service from the northeast, terminating at the station.

HRT continued service on the three long-distance bus routes in The Tide corridor – route 20 on Virginia Beach Boulevard, route 23 on Princess Anne Avenue, and MAX route 960 express on Interstate 264 between Virginia Beach and downtown Norfolk.

Overall, HRT’s adjustments to the bus system were modest in scope and scale, largely for two reasons. • First, the Tide provides new transit service in a new east-west transit corridor – the former railroad right of way. As a result, no existing bus routes became redundant as they could with rail lines introduced on or near arterials streets. • Second, the initial segment of the Tide is relatively short. As a result, speed advantages on the largely exclusive rail right of way are limited in the amount of travel time that they can accumulate. Consequently, truncations of bus routes at rail stations make sense only when transferring passengers will travel most of the length of the rail line. Shorter trips on the Tide will not save enough time to offset the inconvenience of the transfer. This reality is reflected in HRT’s adjustments to the bus system: bus routes terminate only at the eastern and western terminal station – and only for some routes at those stations. At other stations, the bus service adjustments provide an opportunity for passengers to transfer to rail but do not force a transfer.

In January 2012, five months after the start of LRT service and the accompanying adjustments to bus routes, HRT made another set of service changes recommended by a Service and Schedule Efficiency Study (January 2012). The focus of these service changes was to reallocate financial resources from low performing routes (or trips within a route’s service day) to higher performing routes and trips. In addition, the study provided guidance to improve cost efficiency without having to increase fares. A total of 40 bus routes in the HRT service area (17 routes in Hampton and Newport News on the north side of the Chesapeake Bay and 23 routes in Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake on the south side) were changed by either eliminating trips or reducing the frequency of the service. Recommendations were based on minimum passenger boarding thresholds for bus routes. Routes averaging fewer than 10 boardings per trip were defined as underperforming routes that would be either discontinued or modified to eliminate low performing trips during the fringes of the service day.

HRT made these two sets of significant changes to the system: first to improve the bus and rail interface and then to make overall improvements to service productivity and cost efficiencies. Appendix C: Service Levels provides a detailed catalog of all service changes between 2009 and 2013. Table 4.3 summarizes the changes to bus service two years before and after the implementation of The Tide for routes within the corridor, as well as for all routes operating in the Southside (Tidewater) area of the HRT System. . As shown, the majority of Southside routes provide some service within the Tide corridor, connecting this key area with the larger system. Although the overall number of Southside routes remains fairly steady across the period, a noticeable increase in the number of corridor routes is evident, particularly on Saturdays.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 23 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 4.3 Summary of Bus Service Characteristics, 2009 and 2013 Before System (2009) After System (2013) Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Saturday Sunday Corridor Local Routes 18 13 12 21 20 14 Corridor System Max Routes 6 2 2 6 2 2 Corridor Revenue Miles 16,390 11,354 5,201 14,991 11,720 5,395 Corridor Revenue Hours 1,256 926 404 1,276 990 445 Southside Local Routes 39 33 20 38 37 22 Southside Max Routes 7 2 2 7 2 2 Southside Revenue Miles 22,686 16,847 7,094 20,946 17,312 7,065 Southside Revenue Hours 1,840 1,427 637 1,815 1,448 659

The weekday, Saturday and Sunday revenue miles and hours were annualized for 2009 and 2013 to produce annual revenue hour and revenue mile totals shown in Table 4.4. Total annual revenue hours and miles for the Southside System decreased, largely due to the elimination of service to and around the City of Suffolk when the City withdrew from the HRT service district. Within The tide LRT corridor however, revenue hours increased by approximately 10,000 hours, driven by an increase in span of service early morning, late night, and on weekends for routes with direct connections to the LRT line.

Table 4.4 System-Level Service Overview System-Level Characteristics Before (2009) After (2013) Percent Change Corridor Bus Routes Annual Revenue Hours 393,821 403,747 2.5% Annual Revenue Miles 5,091,517 4,757,608 -6.6% Southside Bus Total Revenue Vehicle-Hours 583,363 580,291 -0.5% Revenue Vehicle-Miles 7.11 mil 6.67 mil -6.1% Based on 253 weekdays, 58 Saturdays, and 55 Sundays in 2009; and 253 weekdays, 57 Saturdays, and 55 Sundays in 2013. Source: HRT

Comparison of Predicted and Actual Service Levels Table 4.5 compares the predicted LRT service characteristics at each milestone to the actual service levels. Service level predictions for the Tide were fairly consistent across all three milestones and match actual service levels closely. Three differences are:

• The predictions anticipated 7.5-minute light rail headways in the peak periods while actual peak- period headways are 10 minutes. The longer headways are the consequence of recommendations generated by the state’s rail safety oversight process. • The predictions anticipated faster running speeds for The Tide and end-to-end runtimes of approximately 23 minutes compared to actual runtimes of 26 minutes. The slower actual running speeds are also the consequence of recommendations from the state’s rail safety oversight process.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 24 The Tide Light Rail Project

• The predictions anticipated an earlier end of light rail service on weeknights and a later start of service on Sundays. Just before revenue service began on the Tide, rail service hours were extended by an additional hour on weeknights, and the start of Sunday service was changed to 10:55 a.m. instead of 7:00 a.m. The net effect of these differences is that the predictions overestimated by six percent the revenue-miles of service that The Tide provides, primarily because of the difference in weekday peak-period headways. Even so, the predictions underestimated by 12 percent the revenue-hours of service needed to provide the slightly reduced service because they anticipated faster operating speeds.

Table 4.5 Actual and Predicted Tide Service Levels Predictions during Project Development Day / Period 2013 Actual Entry into PE Entry into FD FFGA Span of Service

Weekday (Mon-Th) 6:00 am-11:00 pm 6:00 am-10:00 pm 6:00 am-10:00 pm 6:00 am-10:00 pm Weekend (Fri-Sat) 6:00 am-12:00 am 6:00 am-12:00 am 6:00 am-12:00 am 6:00 am-12:00 am Sunday (Sun) 10:55 am-9:00 pm 7:00 am-9:00 pm 7:00 am-9:00 pm 7:00 am-9:00 pm Headways (mins)

Weekday Peak 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 Weekday Off-peak 15 15 15 15 Weekday Evening 30 30 30 30 Saturday base 15 15 15 15 Saturday (M/E) 30 30 30 30 Sunday base 15 15 15 15 Sunday (M) N/A 30 30 30 Annual Revenue Mi. 377,097 400,500 400,200 400,200 Weekday 292,974 309,600 310,100 310,100 Weekend 84,123 90,900 90,100 90,100 Annual Revenue Hrs. 29,249 25,950 25,990 25,990 Weekday 22,770 19,770 19,850 19,850 Weekend 6,479 6,180 6,140 6,140 End-to-end runtime Weekday 26 minutes 22.5 minutes 23.0 minutes 23.3 minutes Notes: M = morning, E = evening

Table 4.6 compares the bus connections planned for each station at the prediction milestones against the actual bus-connections to the Tide. The table illustrates the continued refinements that HRT made to the service plan for the Tide during project development. A total of 47 bus-rail connections were either planned or actually implemented. Some 24 of these connections exist in current service – meaning that 23 other connections were considered at some point but ultimately not made. The service plans at both Entry into PE and Entry into FD anticipated that 33 of these bus-rail connections would be made. That dropped to 25 connections at the FFGA. Most of the difference is attributable to the relocation of the transit center in downtown Norfolk and the associated rerouting of buses within downtown. For the Monticello station, as an illustration, the table shows that the service plans at those milestones anticipated connections to 10 bus routes. By the FFGA, however, the revised service plan anticipated that bus routes would focus on the new transit center and that no connections would be made at the Monticello station. In the actual

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 25 The Tide Light Rail Project

outcome, two routes – the 1 and the 3 – stop at both the transit center and the Monticello station. Plans for connections at the Civic Plaza/Government Center station evolved in much the same way. Other differences between the actual and planned bus connections include:

• At the EVMC/Ft. Norfolk Station, routes 4 and 11 were modified after the opening of rail service, to serve the new transit center and no longer make a connection with LRT. Route 2 was originally planned to continue into downtown Norfolk and connect to the Monticello Avenue and Government Center Stations, but now terminates at the EVMC/Ft. Norfolk Station instead. Route 16 to Old Dominion University was added to the service plan proposed just before the FFGA milestone. • The Harbor Park Station was planned for park-and-ride access, and was to be served by the Route 64, but this route was subsequently eliminated. • In the mid-corridor, routes 9 and 13 serve the NSU station as planned. Route 18 serves the Ballentine station as planned and has been rerouted to provide a connection at the NSU station as well. • At the eastern end of the Tide, the Military Highway and Newtown Road stations serve suburban locations with large park-and-ride facilities. Throughout project development, route 20 was planned to connect to the Tide at Military Highway but actually makes the connection at Newtown Road. Conversely, the eastern terminus of Route 23 is actually at the Military Highway Station instead of the Newtown Road Station as planned. Routes 24 and 63 that were planned for connections to Newton Road have been eliminated while new routes 22 and 28 have added service from Newtown Road to the northeast and east.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 26 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 4.6 Table 4.6 (continued) Actual and Planned Bus Connections at Rail Stations Actual and Planned Bus Connections at Rail Stations Actual Connections Anticipated at: Actual Connections Anticipated at: Bus Bus Station 2013 Entry Entry Station 2013 Entry Entry Route FFGA Route FFGA Connection into PE into FD Connection into PE into FD

2 yes no no yes Harbor Park 64 no yes yes no 4 no yes yes no 9 yes yes yes yes 13 yes yes yes yes EVMC/Ft. 11 no yes yes yes NSU Norfolk 16 yes no no yes 18 yes no no yes 13 no no no yes 23 yes yes yes yes Ballentine 18 yes yes yes yes 44 yes yes yes yes 15 yes yes yes yes 3 no no no yes York Street/ 20 no yes yes yes 4 no no no yes Military Freemason Highway 23 yes no no yes 44 yes no no no 967 yes no no yes 1 yes yes yes no 20 yes no no no 2 no yes yes no 22 yes no no no 3 yes yes yes no 4 no yes yes no 23 no yes yes no 6 no yes* yes no 24 no yes yes no Monticello Newtown Road 8 no yes yes no 25 yes yes yes yes 9 no yes yes no 27 yes yes yes yes 13 no yes yes no 28 yes no no yes 23 no yes yes no 63 no yes yes no 45 no yes* yes no Connections --- 24 33 33 25 1 no yes yes yes Made 2 no yes yes no Connections --- 23 14 14 22 3 no yes yes no Not Made Civic Plaza/ 6 yes yes* yes yes Government 8 yes yes yes yes Center 9 no yes yes no 13 no yes yes no 45 yes yes* yes yes 960 yes no no yes 961 yes no no yes

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 27 The Tide Light Rail Project

Conclusions In general, the service plans at the project development milestones accurately anticipated the actual service outcomes. Most differences in bus-rail connections were a The service plan at Entry to FD was result of minor route tweaks occurring after the relocation a fairly accurate predictor of the of the downtown transfer center. The strategic vision overall character of the network. remained the same: that the Tide would be introduced with only minor adjustments to the existing bus routes in the corridor; few changes would be made to truncate existing routes and introduce new feeder routes, and those changes would be focused at the two terminal stations.

A detailed table of changes to proposed schedule, headway, and station connections for each route is available in Appendix C: Service Levels.

5.0 Operations and Maintenance Costs Actual Outcomes In 2013, the Tide LRT operated for a total of over 29,000 train-hours and 373,000 car-miles, resulting in an annual cost of approximately $9.5 million. Table 5.1 shows the operating characteristics for the Tide two years after implementation of service

Table 5.1 2013 LRT Operating Characteristics Variable Annual O&M Cost $9,501,238 Annual Train-Hours 29,849 Annual Car-Miles 373,045 Cost per Train-Hour $318.31 Cost per Car-Mile $25.47 Source: HRT, costs include an administrative component allocated to light rail

In 2013, the HRT bus system operated approximately 794,000 revenue hours and almost 10 million revenue miles for an annual cost of approximately $46.2 million, excluding administrative costs. Comparable figures for 2009 were 860,000 revenue hours and 11.8 million revenue miles for an annual cost of approximately $43.6 million. On a per revenue hour basis, 2013 costs were $58.19/hour versus the 2009 rate of $50.69/hour or about a 14% increase in unit cost. BLS statistics indicate about 8.5% inflation between 2009 and 2013. However, costs for personnel services and materials/supplies (i.e. maintenance) at HRT outpaced inflation, significantly.

Overall, system operating costs were approximately $88.4 million in 2013. Over half of this was incurred by the bus program, while approximately 25% was spent on administration, 10% on LRT, 10% on paratransit, and less than 2% on other services such as ferry boat and van pool. Approximately $670,000 of administrative costs has been allocated to LRT. Additional details are available in Appendix D: Operations & Maintenance.

Accuracy of Predictions

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 28 The Tide Light Rail Project

Tables 5.2 and 5.3 compare the predicted and actual LRT service characteristics and O&M costs. Predicted service levels remained relatively steady across the milestones. The predictions anticipated fewer train-hours but more car-miles than the actual service in 2013. At all milestones, the predictions underestimated the cost of LRT service by approximately $1.9 million. These underestimates had three primary causes.

1. The casualties & liabilities cost category was underestimated by approximately $1.5 million. While HRT is self-insured, the final details of when additional insurance is invoked resulted in higher costs than Variations between predicted and the milestone models predicted by almost a factor of 10. A actual O&M costs were driven by: risk assessment independent for the project development • Underestimated insurance costs process was conducted in November 2009 to inform • The addition of layover time decision makers on the coverage and level of insurance to • be purchased by HRT. The decision to self-insure up to $2 A shift towards on-site million per incident was reached and premiums were maintenance estimated to be $2.3 million per year. Actual premiums in 2013 were still higher than the predicted values during project development but considerably lower at $1.6 million, than the risk assessment in 2009.

2. The number of service hours and resulting platform hours were underestimated. Significant layover time was added in the off-peak hours to the schedule to enhance schedule adherence and facilitate driver breaks and change-overs. The operations plans anticipated during project development included this additional layover time only during peak service. The plans also underestimated running time because they assumed signal priority (rather than pre-emption). Together, the longer layover time and longer running time increased the off-peak vehicle requirement from four to five vehicles and added 3,600 revenue hours into the system, annually. The required number of platform hours needed to supply the additional 3000 revenue hours is the primary reason for the increase in actual personnel services shown in Table 5.3.

3. Throughout LRT O&M cost development for Entry into PE and FD, HRT staff initially assumed 100% contracted maintenance. In actuality, the Tide used a mix of internal and contracted maintenance in 2013. This shift towards on-site employment for maintenance contributed to the lower-than-expected costs for services.

Table 5.2 Comparison of Predicted O&M Characteristics (Costs in Millions, $2013) Final Design - FFGA - 2010 2013 Actual PE - 2021 Build 2010 Build Build Bus System Operational Estimates* Annual Bus Revenue Hours 794,369 634,000 664,230 527,740 Annual Bus Revenue Miles 9,975,730 8,023,400 7,664,200 6,594,000 Fully Allocated O&M Costs $66.74M $68.79 M $50.49 M $50.49 M Cost per Revenue Hour $84.01 $108.50 $76.01 $95.67 The Tide LRT Operational Estimates Annual Train-Hours 29,849 25,950 25,980 26,750 Annual Car-Miles 373,045 400,500 400,100 392,700

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 29 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 5.2 Comparison of Predicted O&M Characteristics (Costs in Millions, $2013) Final Design - FFGA - 2010 2013 Actual PE - 2021 Build 2010 Build Build Fully Allocated LRT O&M Costs $9.50 M $7.59 M $7.68 M $7.65 Cost per Train-Hour $318.31 $292.49 $295.61 $285.98 Source: HRT, BLS * Bus statistics reflect total system figures rather than Southside only as shown in Section 4.

Table 5.3 Comparison of Predicted LRT Personnel and Services Costs 2013 LRT Cost Category Actual Entry into PE Final Design 2013$ 2002$ 2013$ Adj. 2006$ 2013$ Adj. Personnel Services $5,964,849 $3,161,221 $4,093,544 $3,548,300 $4,100,206 Services $777,845 $1,247,529 $1,615,456 $1,342,900 $1,551,776 Casualties & Liabilities $1,643,977 $188,160 $243,653 $138,800 $160,389 Source: HRT, Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Preliminary Engineering FEIS, Transit Operations and Maintenance Plan, HRT Light Rail Transit Project Final Design, Draft O&M Cost Results Report BLS

Lessons Learned As shown, all three milestone reports predicted a lower service level for bus than the actual system levels in 2013. Some of these service differences may reflect the efficiencies incorporated into the bus routing and timing that resulted from the Service Efficiency Plan of 2012 which allowed for more bus service to be provided with minimal change to costs. However, a comparison of the hourly rates suggests that the milestone estimates were relatively consistent with the actual costs in 2013. There were several bus routes added to the system at the time of LRT implementation and resulted in indirect costs being spread across more revenue hours.

6.0 Ridership As of the Fall of 2013, the Tide carried 4,600 trips per average weekday. As shown in Figure 6.1, the Tide attracted over 5,000 average weekday trips at the time of its opening. Ridership rose to over 6,000 trips per average weekday during the Summer of 2012 due to aggressive fare discounting that has since been discontinued. With the exception of the months of November, December, and January, which have lower ridership due to the winter weather, ridership has stabilized to between 4,500 and 5,500 riders per day.

Table 6.1 presents a summary of Fall 2013 trips by place of residence and attraction location. Some 61% of these trips are attracted to the Norfolk core area including the Norfolk CBD, EVMC and Norfolk State University. Another 10% of Tide LRT trips are attracted to other destinations within the immediate project corridor—areas within approximately one mile of a Tide station. Only 29% of Tide LRT trips are attracted to locations more than a mile from the Tide. This result is consistent with experience in other cities where LRT is most likely to serve attractions near the LRT system, particularly the regional Central Business District.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 30 The Tide Light Rail Project

Average Weekday Tide Ridership

7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Average Weekday Ridership Weekday Average 8/2011 2/2012 4/2012 6/2012 8/2012 2/2013 4/2013 6/2013 8/2013 2/2014 4/2014 6/2014 10/2011 12/2011 10/2012 12/2012 10/2013 12/2013 Month/Year

Figure 6.1 Average Weekday Ridership by Month

By contrast, and like other LRT systems in the United States, the residential locations of Tide riders are dispersed over a larger area. Only 35% of trips on the project are made by residents located within one mile of the nearest Tide station. The remaining 65% of Tide riders begin their trips more than a mile from the nearest Tide station meaning that a majority of users must drive or ride a bus to reach their home-end station.

Table 6.1 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Unlinked Trips by Production and Attraction Location Attracted to Workplaces and Other Activities in

Locations Other Outside Norfolk Corridor the Tide All Daily Trips on the Project Core Locations Corridor Locations Share Locations in the Tide Corridor Produced including the CBD 991 195 403 1,589 35% by Locations Outside the Tide Residents Corridor 1,812 274 916 3,002 65% of All Locations 2,803 469 1,320 4,592 100% Share 61% 10% 29% 100%

Over half of all trips on the Tide are made by riders traveling to their place of work or education. Tables 6.2 and 6.3 show that 43% of all Tide LRT riders are making home-based work (HBW) trips and 19% of Tide LRT riders are traveling between home and university (HBU). The HBW trip share is lowest for travelers with a residence in the corridor and traveling to attractions in the Norfolk Core or other corridor locations. The share of HBW trips is highest for travelers residing outside of the corridor. This result suggests that regional travelers are more likely to consider the Tide for work-related travel while corridor travelers, who are closer to the Tide, are more likely to consider the LRT for all types of travel.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 31 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 6.2 HBW Share of 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Unlinked Trips by Production and Attraction Location Attracted to Workplaces and Other Activities in Other Locations Corridor Outside the Daily Trips on the Project Norfolk Core Locations Tide Corridor All Locations Locations in the Tide Corridor Produced including the CBD 26% 27% 32% 28% by Residents Locations Outside the Tide of Corridor 45% 67% 59% 51% All Locations 39% 50% 50% 43%

Table 6.3 HBU Share of 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Unlinked Trips by Production and Attraction Location Attracted to Workplaces and Other Activities in Other Locations Corridor Outside the Daily Trips on the Project Norfolk Core Locations Tide Corridor All Locations Locations in the Tide Corridor Produced including the CBD 19% 0% 9% 14% by Residents Locations Outside the Tide of Corridor 27% 3% 15% 21% All Locations 24% 2% 13% 19%

Slightly more than half of all Tide trips are made by riders who are transit dependents—defined as travelers who are either members of zero-car households or do not possess a driver’s license. Table 6.4 shows that the proportion of transit dependent riders is lowest among trips to the CBD and higher for Tide trips to other parts of the region. This pattern reflects the impediments to automobile travel to the CBD including traffic congestion and the costs and limited supply of parking that can induce a larger share of choice riders to choose transit.

Table 6.4 Transit Dependent Share of 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Unlinked Trips by Production and Attraction Location Attracted to Workplaces and Other Activities in Other Locations Corridor Outside the Daily Trips on the Project Norfolk Core Locations Tide Corridor All Locations Locations in the Tide Corridor Produced including the CBD 51% 70% 63% 56% by Residents Locations Outside the Tide of Corridor 37% 74% 72% 51% All Locations 42% 72% 69% 53%

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 32 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 6.5 shows the share of Tide riders who travel from home to their first transit stop by a non- motorized access mode. These trips include both passengers that walk or bike directly to the LRT and customers who walk or bike to a feeder bus that takes them to the Tide. Most Tide riders (73%) travel to their first transit stop using a non-motorized mode – either walk or bike. Only trips that begin outside of the immediate corridor and travel to the Norfolk core are more likely to drive or be driven to their first transit stop.

Table 6.5 Non-Motorized Access-to-Transit Share of 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Unlinked Trips by Production and Attraction Location Attracted to Workplaces and Other Activities in Other Locations Corridor Outside the Daily Trips on the Project Norfolk Core Locations Tide Corridor All Locations Locations in the Tide Corridor Produced including the CBD 94% 100% 99% 96% by Residents Locations Outside the Tide of Corridor 47% 84% 84% 62% All Locations 64% 90% 88% 73%

The introduction of Tide LRT service appears to have resulted in a modest increase in transit ridership in the region. As shown in Tables 6.6 and 6.7, overall HRT daily system-wide linked trips increased from 35,700 in 2011 to The 38% growth in ridership 38,700 in 2013, an increase of 8%. Differences between the attracted to the Norfolk Core 2011 and 2013 rider-survey techniques have led to variations suggests that the Tide has in the geographic distribution of transit ridership that contributed to increased transit complicate attempts to identify specific changes to Hampton use. Roads ridership patterns. Nevertheless, the growth in transit ridership attracted to the Norfolk Core (from 5,800 to 8,000 daily trips, 38% growth) is sufficiently large to suggest that the Tide has contributed to increasing transit use in the areas that it serves.

Table 6.6 Year 2011 System-Wide Weekday Linked Transit Trips Flows (Before) Attracted to Workplaces and Other Activities in Other Locations Corridor Outside the Daily Trips on the Project Norfolk Core Locations Tide Corridor All Locations Locations in the Tide Corridor Produced including the CBD 1,952 772 2,720 5,444 by Residents Locations Outside the Tide of Corridor 3,870 1,398 25,002 30,270 All Locations 5,822 2,170 27,722 35,714

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 33 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 6.7 Year 2013 System-Wide Weekday Linked Transit Trips Flows (After) Attracted to Workplaces and Other Activities in Other Locations Corridor Outside the Daily Trips on the Project Norfolk Core Locations Tide Corridor All Locations Locations in the Tide Corridor Produced including the CBD 1,567 213 3,084 4,864 by Residents Locations Outside the Tide of Corridor 6,462 1,695 25,645 33,802 All Locations 8,029 1,908 28,729 38,666

Table 6.8 compares actual ridership using the Tide in 2013 to predictions of opening year ridership prepared for each project development milestone. At Entry into PE, HRT prepared horizon year forecasts but did not prepare opening year predictions of Tide ridership. HRT used identical methods and assumptions to prepare opening year Actual ridership has beaten ridership forecasts for both the Entry into FD and FFGA projected ridership by 37%. milestones. Consequently, the forecasts of opening year ridership are identical for the two milestones.

At the Entry into FD and FFGA milestones, HRT projected that that the Tide would attract 2,891 weekday riders. This projection is 37% below actual 2013 ridership of 4,592 boardings per day.

Table 6.8 Actual Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Ridership Compared to Opening Year Forecasts at Milestones Purpose Actual Entry into PE Entry into FD FFGA HBW 1,983 Not estimated 2,221 2,221 HBO 2,034 Not estimated 178 178 NHB 574 Not estimated 492 492 Total 4,592 Not estimated 2,891 2,891

The difference is not uniform across all trip purposes; nearly all of the discrepancy occurs for home- based other (HBO) trips. Projections of both HBW and non-home based (NHB) trips accurately anticipated overall travel for these purposes. Key comparisons of predicted versus actual ridership are as follows: • Predictions of 2,200 daily Tide HBW trips exceeded actual ridership by 12%. The forecasts correctly anticipated that the key attraction location for HBW trips is the Norfolk Core but overestimated ridership to this area by 700 daily trips. • HRT projected that the Tide would attract only 180 home-based other (HBO) trips as compared to actual ridership of 2,000 daily HBO trips. The reasons for this difference are not known with certainty. It appears that the unique characteristics of attractions in the Norfolk core may not have been fully represented in the regional travel forecasting models used at the time. The Norfolk core includes governmental centers, universities, major medical institutions, sporting venues, performing arts venues, and regional shopping centers that draw visitors from a

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 34 The Tide Light Rail Project

broader area than most non-work attractions in other parts of the region. Many of these trips elect to use the Tide. • Predictions of 490 daily non-home-based (NHB) trips closely approximate actual ridership of 570 NHB trips. The majority of predicted NHB ridership occurs to, from, or within the core and matches observed ridership patterns. One reason for the success of the NHB forecasts is that the project sponsors used the FTA supplemental NHB forecasting model to estimate the effect that the Tide LRT would have on increasing ridership for midday travel between work and other non-home locations. The FTA supplemental model contributed 350 out of 490 total predicted NHB trips.

Lessons Learned These results demonstrate that carefully validated forecasting models can accurately forecast HBW trip purposes and that the FTA supplemental NHB forecasting techniques can help to understand the impact that new fixed guideway services can have on induced travel between Carefully validated forecasting workplaces and other non-home destinations. The substantial models can improve the accuracy of under-prediction of HBO trips suggests that additional effort ridership predictions. may be needed to properly represent the unique HBO attractions in downtown areas to properly estimate ridership drawn from throughout the region to these unique facilities.

Appendix E: Ridership provides more detailed information on the impacts of the Tide LRT project on transit ridership and on the accuracy of the ridership predictions.

7.0 Farebox Revenues Fare Structure Comparison 2009 (Before) and 2013 (After) The 2013 fare structure for the HRT system, shown in Table 7.1, is identical to the system’s fare structure in 2009 except for the added fare media for the GoPass365 and 3-day Full/Half GoPasses. While the GoPass 365 had a significant impact on LRT fare revenue and ridership, the 3-day GoPasses were specifically for shuttle services in Virginia Beach and had minimal bearing on the ridership and use of fare media on the light rail system. The GoPass 365 pass, an annual unlimited ride pass, is available to area universities and community colleges, as well as through select area employers who purchase the pass directly from HRT and then provide to their employees only. For a significant period in FY 2013, the GoPass365 was available for as low as $6.50 annually and it had a profound impact on system revenue.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 35 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 7.1 2013 Fares by Mode and Fare Category Fare Category Bus LRT Ferry MAX VB Wave Cash Fares Adult $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $3.00 $1.00 Half-fare* $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $1.50 $0.50 Youth (under 17) $1.00 $1.00 $1.50 $3.00 $1.00 Children (less than 38”) Free Free Free Free Free HRT GoPass 1 Day $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $5.50 $2.00 1 Day Half-fare** $1.75 $1.75 $1.75 n/a $1.00 1 Day Bundle of 5 $16.50 $16.50 $16.50 $24.75 $10.00 1 Day Half-fare** Bundle of 5 $8.75 $8.75 $8.75 N/A N/A 3 Day N/A N/A N/A N/A $5.00 3 Day Half-fare** N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.50 7 Day $17.00 $17.00 $17.00 N/A N/A 30 Day $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $95.00 N/A 30 Day Half-fare** $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 N/A N/A HRT Go365 Go365*** * Seniors, disabled and Medicaid-eligible riders are eligible for half-priced cash fares ** Seniors, disabled and Medicaid-eligible riders, and students are eligible for reduced-priced GoPasses *** Go365, Annual pass sold to employers directly and not available to individuals Source: HRT

Comparison of Before and After Fare Revenues For fiscal year 2013, spanning from July of 2012 to June of 2013, total HRT system revenue was approximately $15.1 million. This was a decrease of approximately $1.8 million from FY09 when total system Deep fare discounts – which revenue was approximately $16.9 million. The decrease positively impacted ridership – occurred in spite of 19.2% increase in overall system ridership, negatively impacted revenue attributable mostly to the implementation of the Tide and new riders attracted by the big drop in fares per boarding generated by the Tide. cited below.. The GoPass365, which was offered for only half of the FY 13 (re-priced in January 2013), significantly reduced the revenue per boarding generated on the light rail. There were other deep discounts (3-day passes) added to the fare structure that had a smaller negative impact of fare per boarding as well.

Since the Tide has no fare-collection equipment that would count rider fares, estimating the amount of fare revenue credited to LRT service can only be based on the system average fare per boarding. Average fare per boarding in 2009 was about $1.10. In 2013, the average fare person dropped to $0.82. Since 2013, the average fare per boarding has rebounded to levels at or above $0.94 now that the GoPass 365 pass is more reasonably priced.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 36 The Tide Light Rail Project

Comparison to Milestone Predictions Actual system fare revenue is considerably lower than milestone predictions primarily because the predictions were based on the assumption that HRT would implement an initial fare increase corresponding with the Despite higher-than-predicted introduction of rail and a second fare increase during the FY ridership, Tide revenue did not 2013 operating year. Even though actual ridership was meet projections because planned considerably higher than forecasts, the system did not fare increases did not occur. generate the predicted level of revenue because the fare increases never materialized. In addition, HRT added deeper discounts (GoPass 365) into the fare structure. As discussed in the ridership section, the lower fares had a positive impact on ridership.

At Entry into PE, the FY 2013 system fare revenue was projected to be $22.5 million This prediction was based on an average fare per boarding of $1.29, added two inflation-based fare increases, and only used overall system ridership in the calculation. At Entry to FD, the FY 2013 system fare revenue was projected to be $19.0 million. This later revenue forecast was more conservative, using a fare per boarding of $1.01. The fare per boarding assumed in both predictions was higher than the actual $0.82 per boarding average in FY 2013.

8.0 LRT’s Role in Station Area Development Purpose of the Analysis In the 2008 Documentation of Conditions Before Project Implementation Report, a list of 33 planned developments was compiled to create a baseline of expected developments against which “realized” station area developments (what was actually constructed) could later be measured. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the impacts of Tide operations on station area development activity. This was analysis was structured to determine which of the projects listed in the 2008 report have been constructed to date, identify station area developments that were not yet planned in 2008 but have subsequently been constructed, which of the station area developments can be attributed to LRT operations, and to identify developments that were planned in 2008 but have not been constructed.

Actual Station Area Development 31 real estate projects have been built (or have begun construction) within a half-mile of Tide LRT stations (defined as the station area) since 2008. These represent a combination of completed projects noted in the 2008 report, as well as projects that were not yet in planning or development in 2008. These developments are a mixture of sizes, scales and uses. The majority of this development has occurred in the station areas nearest the downtown.

Station Area Development Attributable to LRT According to staff from the City of Norfolk Department of Development and HRT, three station area developments were directly attributable to Tide LRT operations. According to the City and HRT staff, the closure of these three development deals was dependent on a number of factors and concessions, including LRT service. Developers valued LRT’s role in increasing transportation access options to their developments, and believed that this increased level of access would increase the marketability of their property.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 37 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 8.1 Developments since 2008 within a Half-Mile of Tide LRT Stations that are Directly Attributable to LRT Service In 2008 Description Investment Name LRT Station Area(s) Report? Value 195,890 square feet of $80 million Fort Norfolk Plaza EVMC / Fort Norfolk  medical office, retail, (2006) parking York Street / Freemason 240+ luxury apartments $45 million Belmont at Freemason Monticello  (2007) MacArthur Square Mixed use tower, $180 million York Street / Freemason including 255,000 square (2010) Wells Fargo (Wachovia) Monticello feet of office; 50,000  Tower MacArthur Square square feet of retail; Civic Plaza 1,800+ parking spaces and 121 residential units Source: Norfolk Department of Development, HRT Planning Staff

These three projects represent more than $305 million and 500,000 square feet of investment attributed by the City to the Tide System. While other developments built since 2008 may be attributable to or influenced by the Tide, there is no information available to make a direct connection.

Planned Developments That Have Not Been Constructed Of the 33 planned developments listed in the 2008 report, 13 have been constructed, 12 have not been constructed, and 33 station-area developments were eight fall outside of an LRT station area. The planned planned in 2008; 13 have been developments that were not constructed were a mixture of constructed to-date, of which three sizes, scales and uses. There does not appear to be a pattern can be attributed to LRT service. or common reason that these developments did not move forward into construction.

Conclusion With the exception of the three developments specifically noted above, there is very little evidence to indicate that the development that has happened in Norfolk since 2008 can be directly attributed to LRT. The development of MacArthur Center, a large-scale regional mall that opened in Norfolk’s central business district in March of 1999, was a critical first step in reversing the cycle of downtown disinvestment, and can be credited with beginning a cycle of reinvestment that has resulted in the renaissance of downtown Norfolk as a vibrant, mixed-use regional destination. Market forces catalyzed by the success of the MacArthur Center are responsible for this broader downtown renaissance, although there are limited examples (discussed above) where LRT operations can be credited for specific developments. Additional discussion is contained in Appendix F: Land Use & Development.

9.0 Parking Purpose of the Analysis Appendix G: Parking was prepared to review and compare City of Norfolk parking policies, parking supply, and parking utilization reports before and after the implementation of the Tide LRT service in an attempt to determine the impact of LRT service on parking in the Central Business District (CBD) and fringe CBD. City-controlled garages provide 90 percent of all spaces in the Norfolk CBD.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 38 The Tide Light Rail Project

The number of spaces, utilization rates, and costs of City-controlled parking garages and parking lots in Norfolk’s CBD and fringe CBD were inventoried in the 2008 Before Project Implementation Report. This inventory, which relied on 2006/2008 data, has been updated with 2014 data as part of this Report and is discussed below. Details of the City’s parking policy and regulatory changes, and a comparison of between 2006/2008 and 2014 parking supply, demand, and cost for City-controlled lots and garages in Norfolk’s CBD and fringe CBD can be found in the sections below.

A comparison of 2006/2008 and 2014 parking data does not demonstrate a direct correlation between Tide LRT service There is no direct correlation and parking supply, demand, and pricing in Norfolk’s CBD. between Tide operations and The data does show that the supply of parking (number of parking supply, demand, and spaces) in City-controlled parking garages and lots has pricing in the Norfolk CBD. increased by 8% between 2006 and 2014 (two new garages have opened and five lots/garages have closed) while the utilization rate has declined by 4%. This means that the number of utilized City-controlled parking spaces has remained stable between 2006 and 2014. The price of parking has increased to some degree between 2008 and 2014 for all City-controlled parking garages and lots within the CBD, but the degree of increase is determined by the City’s 2010 pricing restructure from tiered to flat pricing in City- controlled lots and garages.

City of Norfolk Parking Policy and Regulations In addition to understanding the parking data discussed in the following two sections, it is helpful to understand the City parking policy and regulations because those policies and regulations guide the supply of, demand for (through pricing decisions), and cost of parking.

In October 2005, Norfolk City Council passed a Resolution to “adopt a parking policy to support a greater use of public transit,” with an attached policy titled “Transit Oriented Downtown Parking Policy” (Resolution 1, 289). One of the policy goals within the Resolution encouraged “promotion of greater development density particularly near transit stations.” As documented in the Norfolk LRT Documentation of Conditions Before Project Implementation Report (2008), this policy set the Maximum Downtown Parking Capacity at 3.7 privately-controlled parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of leasable office space within the CBD.

Beginning in 2010, City of Norfolk staff began researching and proposing parking policy changes to satisfy market demand for reduced parking requirements and reduce a perceived oversupply of downtown parking. In February 2014, Norfolk City Council members (based on research and recommendations by City staff) recommended a series of changes to the Zoning Ordinance, including a 25 percent reduction in required parking minimums for non-residential (including commercial) uses within 1,500 feet of a LRT station. The parking minimums vary by land use and location; details can be found in the revised ordinance, which can be found in Appendix G: Parking.

This policy change was partially catalyzed by the realization that “application of suburban parking standards in the Arts District and in Fort Norfolk has created a barrier to revitalization” and to improve compliance with Character Districts defined in plaNorfolk2030, the city’s General Plan. The City Council approved the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance on March 25, 2014.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 39 The Tide Light Rail Project

It is too soon to quantitatively measure the impacts of this 2014 zoning change on the supply of downtown parking, but the adoption of the Transit Oriented Downtown Parking Policy and the 25 percent reduction in the required parking minimum for non-residential uses within 1,500 feet of an LRT station indicate the City’s belief that Tide LRT can play a role in reducing demand for parking and the City’s desire for transit-supportive land uses in LRT station areas.

Parking Supply The City controls 90% of the parking in downtown Norfolk; the remaining 10% is privately-controlled. Privately-controlled parking facilities are not included in this inventory. Two garages, the Bank and Charlotte Street Garages, were built in 2010 after the 2008 Before Project Implementation Report was completed. Their primary purpose was to accommodate demand that was generated by the construction of the Wells Fargo Tower. These garages were opened just before the City started considering changes to its parking policy in 2010 (described in Appendix G).

While the utilization rate of the City-controlled parking garages and lots has decreased 4%, the total number of parking spaces has increased over 8% (from 16,418 to 17,925) between 2006 and 2014. This increase in the number of spaces reflects the construction of the Bank and Charlotte Street Garages, which added 1,858 additional parking spaces to the CBD. The majority of spaces in these two new garages (80%) are designated for monthly parking. Five lots/garages closed between 2006 and 2014, resulting in the loss of 1,390 spaces; these lots/garages were closed to so that the underlying land could be redeveloped.

A comparison of 2006 and 2014 parking supply data does not demonstrate a direct correlation between Tide LRT operations and parking supply in Norfolk’s CBD. Further, the data does not immediately indicate that parking policies have made a difference to parking utilization or construction. Additional time is needed to see if the policies will make long term changes to parking supplies in the CBD.

Parking Pricing In response to concerns that parking demand generated by CBD development would exceed the existing parking supply, the City of Norfolk established a three-tiered pricing structure in 2002 for City-controlled parking garages and lots. The intent was to use pricing as a policy mechanism to distribute parking demand more evenly throughout City-owned garages and lots. The tiering of the garages was based on proximity to prime demand generators: garages and lots closest to those generators were classified as Tier 1, which was the most expensive tier. Garages and lots that were located successively further away from those demand generators were classified in the less expensive Tiers 2 and 3. In 2010, the City eliminated the tiered parking garage pricing structure because development was more evenly distributed throughout the city than anticipated, which resulted in a more even distribution of parking demand than anticipated. The City decided that the tiered structure was not necessary to balance demand among the City-controlled parking lots and garages.

A comparison of 2008 and 2014 parking pricing data does not demonstrate a direct correlation between Tide LRT operations and parking costs in Norfolk’s CBD.

Additional Transit Network Factors The Norfolk Electric Transit (NET) Circulator (HRT Route 17) was a downtown circulator bus route that was established in 1999 to connect residents and visitors with employment, dining, entertainment, shopping, and other destinations within downtown. Operation of the route was intended to reduce

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 40 The Tide Light Rail Project

parking demand, as riders could choose to circulate car-free throughout the downtown. The service, which originally was fare-free, was converted to the HRT bus fare structure in 2011 to reduce a perceived competition (due to redundant service along some routes) with the new LRT service. The service routing was modified in 2011 and 2013, and was discontinued in July 2014.

Free LRT park-and-ride lots (Harbor Park, Ballentine/Broad Creek, Military Highway, and Newtown Road) have increased transit system access by suburban users. Despite these free parking facilities, however, HRT Planning Department staff report that some commuters have continued to park at CBD fringe lots and garages and walk into the CBD as a means to more directly access to their final destination.

Lessons Learned A comparison of 2006/2008 and 2014 parking data does not demonstrate a direct correlation between Tide LRT The City of Norfolk is making operations and parking supply, demand, and pricing in regulatory changes that reflect the Norfolk’s CBD. There are, however, additional opportunities belief that the Tide will play a role for the City of Norfolk to better align transit and parking in reducing demand for parking in policy to manage supply of and demand for parking (through the future. zoning changes, pricing, number of available spaces) to support transit ridership.

10.0 Traffic Purpose of the Analysis In the 2008 Documentation of Conditions Before Project Implementation report, Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and intersection turn movement counts of major roadway segments and intersections were conducted in 2007 at the same locations as in the project Final Environmental Impact Statement. A subset of these segment and intersection locations was updated with 2014 count data. The methodology and results of this update, as well as reasons for changes in the count volumes, are included in the sections below and described in more detail in Appendix H: Traffic.

Actual Outcomes Average Daily Traffic (ADT) In the 2008 Documentation of Conditions Before Project Implementation Report, ADT counts of 52 major roadway segments were conducted in 2007 at the same locations as in the project Final Environmental Impact Statement. A subset of these locations – seven locations, listed below – was updated with 2014 count data. ADT counts were taken over the course of week (including the weekend) at seven locations. A comparison of the 2007 and 2014 ADT data is shown in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1 Comparison of Average Daily Traffic Counts, 2007 and 2014 % Roadway Name Segment From Segment To 2007 2014 Change Change City Hall Avenue Monticello Avenue St. Paul’s Boulevard 13,990 6,449 -7,541 -54%

St. Paul’s Boulevard Waterside City Hall Avenue 14,885 8,546 -6,339 -43% Eastbound City Hall St. Paul’s Boulevard Berkeley Bridge 42,410 13,522 -23,072 -154% Avenue

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 41 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 10.1 Comparison of Average Daily Traffic Counts, 2007 and 2014 % Roadway Name Segment From Segment To 2007 2014 Change Change Westbound City Hall St. Paul’s Boulevard Berkeley Bridge 5,816 Avenue Brambleton Avenue Tidewater Drive Park Avenue 28,650 32,035 3,385 12%

Brambleton Avenue Park Avenue I-264 39,630 34,216 -5,414 -14% Virginia Beach Ballentine Boulevard I-264 29,935 14,859 -15,076 -50% Boulevard

ADT counts have declined at six of the seven count locations between 2007 and 2014. Two main issues influenced the variation in ADT counts between 2007 and 2014: • Construction of the new City Hall complex on the east ADT count declines were driven by: side of St. Paul’s Boulevard in the vicinity of City Hall • Avenue has resulted in lane closures and various Lane closures/traffic impacts of traffic impacts. the new City Hall complex • Tolls have been added to the Downtown and • New tunnel tolls Midtown Tunnels, with major shifts in traffic There is not sufficient data to link orientation and mixed impacts: drivers either avoid this decline to Tide operations. the tolls using alternate routes, or shift travel times to avoid peak-hour prices.

The decreased ADT counts along Ballentine Boulevard may reflect some Norfolk State students shifting transportation mode from cars to LRT. Decreases may also reflect drivers choosing alternate routes to avoid intersection congestion from LRT signal preemption. However, there is no survey data to substantiate these potential explanations.

Intersection Turning Movements and Level of Service (LOS) In the 2008 Documentation of Conditions Before Project Implementation Report, peak period turn movement counts were conducted in 2007 at 38 intersections. A subset of these locations – nine locations, While intersection turn counts listed below – was updated with 2014 count data. declined between 2007 and 2014, Intersection turn movement counts were taken during the there is not sufficient data to link AM peak period (6:00 am to 9:00 am) and PM peak period this decline to LRT operations. (3:00 pm to 6:00 pm) during a weekday at nine locations. A summary comparison of the 2007 and 2014 turn movement count data and explanations for changes overtime are shown in Table 10.2, with more detailed information available in Appendix H: Traffic. With a few exceptions, intersection turn counts declined between 2007 and 2014; we do not have sufficient data to link these changes to LRT operations.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 42 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 10.2 Comparison of Intersection Turn Movement Counts, 2007 and 2014 Change, 2007 to 2014 AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Percent Percent Total Change Total Change Change Change St. Paul’s Boulevard and City Hall -643 -21% 221 5% Avenue Monticello Avenue and City Hall -682 -57% -471 -32% Avenue* Monticello Avenue and Freemason -276 -42% -407 -40% Street Monticello Avenue and Charlotte Street -245 -36% -258 -27% Boush Street and Charlotte Street / Bute 206 10% -186 -8% Street* Duke Street and Bute Street 38 10% -91 -15%

Duke Street and Brambleton Avenue -654 -14% -870 -17% Ballentine Boulevard and Westbound -577 -22% -397 -14% Off/Westbound On Ramp* Ballentine Boulevard and Eastbound Off/Eastbound On Ramp / Westminster -313 -17% -82 -4% Avenue

11.0 Summary More than three years after the start of revenue service, the Tide LRT has exceeded ridership projections and become a critical element of Norfolk’s transit – and transportation – network. Of the nine categories of characteristics that have been analyzed as part of this Before-and-After Study, two met projections (Physical Scope and Service Levels), and four deviated from projections (Capital Costs, Operations & Maintenance, Ridership and Farebox Revenue). Predictions related to three categories (Land Use & Development, Parking and Traffic) cannot fully be assessed because of difficulty isolating data for analysis.

As described in this report and appendices, some of the differences between predicted and actual outcomes resulted from inaccurate assumptions (capital and O&M costs) and failure to enact a planned fare increase (and instead offering deep fare discounts). Others resulted from short-term cost-cutting measures and regulatory delays. The analysis has shown that deviations in one category sometimes impacted related categories: the lower-than-anticipated farebox revenue reflects policy decisions that supported the higher-than-anticipated ridership.

While inaccurate predictions can be expected over the planning, construction, and operations life cycle of a major transit investment, the Before-and-After Study has resulted in the identification of “lessons learned” that may have minimized these deviations, including:

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 43 The Tide Light Rail Project

• Manage the construction schedule to control costs: HRT believes that the creation of a master project schedule that monitors the progress of all contracts and contractors from receipt of the FFGA to completion of construction could have minimized cost overruns. • Manage cost-cutting efforts over the project life-cycle: Major assumptions made before Entry into PE for the purpose of reducing project capital costs were later proven to be overreaching, requiring items to be reinserted into the project during construction. These reintroduced items, accompanied by other items added during construction, account for the largest amount of discrepancy between actual and predicted capital costs. Continued oversight from FTA, open communication with stakeholders and oversight agencies, and a thorough response to identified potential risks could have provided a more accurate prediction of the actual costs incurred on the Tide. • Train staff on project critical path activities and FTA processes: Mistakes in cost estimates and lost time may have been avoided if HRT project staff were fully trained on the critical path activities to project completion (revenue operations) and the FTA conventions/processes for achieving project completion.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 44

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

Appendix A: Physical Scope

Hampton Roads Transit Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project Physical Scope

Introduction The purpose of this technical memorandum (tech memo) is to document the physical scope of The Tide, Hampton Roads Transit’s (HRT) first light rail transit (LRT) line. HRT’s governing body, the Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads (TDCHR), was awarded a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) on October 1, 2007 by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) under its New Starts program in the amount of $127,980,000. This tech memo provides documentation of the project’s physical scope as constructed and as predicted at three key milestones in the planning process: Entry into PE, Entry into Final Design, and the FFGA. The documentation provided in this tech memo will be summarized in the project’s Before-and-After Study, an FTA-required study for projects receiving New Starts funding.

The tech memo begins with a description of the as-built physical scope of the project. The physical scope descriptions at each of the three milestones will then follow. For each milestone, differences in the predicted scope compared to the as-built scope will be identified and described. For the purposes of this document, an element is described as “not accurately predicted” if any changes to the project element occurred during the planning process, even when changes are relatively minor.

As-Built Physical Scope The Tide LRT project began revenue operations on August 29, 2011. The corridor as constructed and operated extends approximately 7.3 route-miles from the Eastern Virginia Medical Center (EVMC) complex east through downtown Norfolk to Newtown Road at the Norfolk-Virginia Beach border. It is served by 11 stations and four park-and-ride lots. The Tide typically operates for 17 hours Monday through Thursday, 18 hours on Friday and Saturday, and 10 hours on Sunday, utilizing six light rail vehicles (LRV) during peak periods. A table is provided at the end of this section that summarizes the as- built physical scope and the predicted physical scope at Entry into PE, Entry into Final Design, and the FFGA. The following sections describe the elements of the project organized by FTA’s standard cost categories (SCC). The categories relevant to physical scope are as follows: • SCC 10: Guideway and Track Elements • SCC 20: Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal • SCC 30: Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administrative Buildings • SCC 40: Sitework & Special Conditions • SCC 50: Systems • SCC 60: ROW, Land, Existing Improvements • SCC 70: Vehicles

Guideway and Track Elements (SCC 10) The as built project consists of a 7.34-mile, double-tracked light rail system with a reserved transit corridor by operating agreement in the downtown portion of the alignment and a dedicated right-of- way (ROW) on abandoned Norfolk Southern Railroad ROW from Norfolk State University (NSU) Station to Newtown Road Station. The project is single-tracked for short distances heading into the western and eastern terminal stations. A short portion of the alignment (0.2 miles) on Charlotte and Bute Streets are on shared lanes with vehicular traffic and not on dedicated ROW.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 1

The Tide Light Rail Project

Guideway Subcategories- The project as built includes portions of semi-exclusive at-grade guideway, mixed-use at-grade guideway, exclusive aerial guideway, and retained fill guideway. There is approximately 4.4 route miles of at-grade, semi-exclusive guideway along the former Norfolk Southern Railroad ROW portion of the alignment from the crossing of the Lamberts Point Branch to the Newtown Station at the eastern terminus of the project. Within the Norfolk Central Business District (CBD), approximately 1.3 route miles of guideway is semi-exclusive, and 0.21 route miles is mixed-use. Aerial structure was constructed for a total of approximately 1.17 route miles in length at three creek crossings (Smith Creek, Broad Creek, Moseley Creek), two active Norfolk Southern freight crossings, and three roadway crossings (Park Avenue, Claiborne Avenue, and Brambleton Avenue). Retained fill sections total approximately 0.22 route miles and primarily occur in the areas adjacent to I-264 between Lambert’s Point railroad crossing and the Brambleton Avenue Bridge adjacent to Norfolk University. Other minor segments of retained fill are located primarily at bridge approaches.. Table 1 summarizes the as-built guideway and track elements.

Table 1 As-Built Guideway and Track Elements Guideway Length (Track miles) Element At Grade 11.77 mi Below Grade 0.00 mi Aerial 2.35 mi Retained Fill 0.35 mi Total 14.47 mi Exclusive ROW 2.75 mi Semi-exclusive ROW 11.30 mi Mixed-use ROW 0.41 mi Track Element Direct Fixation 0.36 mi Embedded 3.03 mi Ballasted 8.75 mi Open Deck 1.98 mi Full-Depth Crossing 0.33 mi Total 14.45 mi Source: URS, HRT, 2014.

Track Subcategories- Six categories of track were utilized for the as-built project: direct fixation, embedded, ballasted, open deck, full-depth crossing, and special trackwork. Full-depth crossing is similar to ballasted track and open deck is similar to direct fixation; as these categories are not listed in the FTA SCC, they have been included in the lengths for ballasted and open deck track, respectively. Direct fixation track was used for approximately 0.36 track miles on the aerial structures of the project. Open deck track was also used on aerial structures, in the amount of approximately 1.98 track miles. Embedded track was utilized in the Norfolk Central Business District (CBD) in the amount of approximately 3.03 track miles. The embedded track includes the construction of a red concrete surface pour, installed for aesthetic reasons at the request of the City. Ballasted track was used along the abandoned Norfolk Southern corridor and between York Street/Freemason Station and along

2 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide Light Rail Project

Brambleton Avenue heading toward EVMC/Fort Norfolk Station. Ballasted track is also in the Norfolk Tide Facility (NTF), the vehicle maintenance facility and yard. Ballasted track totaled approximately 8.75 track miles. The special trackwork included turnouts, crossovers, guard rail, restraining rail, two spring switches for the terminal stations, and track drains.

Stations (SCC 20) The as-built light rail facility has eleven stations, each of which having a covered platform shelter with bench seating, space for two ticket vending machines, and ADA ramp access. Nine stations have one-car platforms, the MacArthur Station was built with two-car platforms, and the lone aerial station was builtas a two-car platform, but designed to accommodate three. From west to east, the following paragraphs highlight elements specific to each station, and Table 2 summarizes the station characteristics of the constructed project. All as built stations incorporate a vinyl-clad wood frame shelter with sectioned glazing, a gable roof, special tubular steel railings, globe lighting, and special information kiosk.

EVMC/Fort Norfolk Station- This station is located at the western terminus of the project on the south side of Brambleton Avenue, just west of Colley Avenue, and serves the Eastern Virginia Medical Center complex, Norfolk Public Health Department, Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, Children’s Hospital of The King’s Daughters, and the American Red Cross. This at-grade station includes a side platform, two bus bays, and 250 parking spaces. The bus bays were installed by the City of Norfolk after project completion. Parking at this station is only available at designated times: 6:00 to 11:59 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 6:00 p.m. Friday through 11:59 p.m. Sunday. Bus Routes 2, 16, 23, and 44 serve the LRT station.

York Street/Freemason Station- This station is an at-grade station located on York Street between Dunmore Street and Yarmouth Street, adjacent to the existing YMCA. The walk-up, side-platform station serves the northern end of the Norfolk Central Business District and the Chrysler Museum of Art. No bus connections or parking were provided as part of the federally-funded project and no bus transfers were offered at the start of revenue service; however, Route 44 now goes along Brambleton Avenue.

Monticello Station- This station is an at-grade station located in the center of Monticello Avenue near Charlotte Street and Freemason Street in front of the Wells Fargo Center. The walk-up, center platform station serves The Norfolk Scope, Chrysler Hall, MacArthur Center, Granby Street entertainment/commercial district, Walter E. Hoffman United States Courthouse, the Roper Center for the Performing Arts, The Wells Theater, and the downtown campus of Tidewater Community College (TCC). No bus connections or parking were provided as part of the federally-funded project, and no bus transfers were offered at the start of revenue service; however, Routes 1 and 3 now serve Monticello Station with stops on Monticello Avenue near Charlotte Street.

MacArthur Square Station- This station is located between Bank and Atlantic Streets on the east and west and between City Hall Avenue and Plume Street on the north and south. The walk-up station serves the central portion of the Norfolk Central Business District, MacArthur Center, the MacArthur Memorial, and Norfolk Central Library. The two-car, side station platforms sit on the former Kirn Library site and contain two station shelters side-by-side in each direction with the tracks in the center. No bus connections or parking are provided.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 3

The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 2 As-Built Station Characteristics Station Platform Type Station Profile Bus Bays Parking EVMC/Fort Norfolk Side At grade 2* 250* Station York Street/Freemason Side At grade None None Station Monticello Station Center At grade None None MacArthur Square Side At grade None None Station Civic Plaza Station Side At grade 1*** None Harbor Park Station Center At grade None 176 NSU Station Center Aerial None** None Ballentine/Broad Creek 2 (and 1 Station Side At grade passenger drop- 105 off area) Ingleside Road Station Side At grade None On-street^ Military Highway Side At grade 2 232 Station Newtown Road Station Center At grade 3 266 Source: *EVMC/Fort Norfolk Station: Two bus bays were installed after project completion by the city, not at project cost; Parking only available M-TH 6:00 p.m.-11:59 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Friday until 11:59 p.m. Sunday **NSU Station as funded by the project did not include any bus bays, however, two bus bays were installed in 2013 by the City of Norfolk. ***An existing HRT bus stop already was located at St. Paul’s Blvd. and Plume St. to provide transfer service to the LRT. ^On-street parking reserved for area residents only

Civic Plaza Station- This station is located on the plaza at Norfolk City Hall and serves the eastern end of the Norfolk Central Business District, Circuit court, General District court, and Juvenile Domestic Relations court. Bus Routes 6, 8, 45, 960, and 961 serve the station.

Harbor Park Station- This station is located at the east end of Harbor Park and serves the baseball stadium. The at-grade, center-platform station provides 176 parking spaces for use by transit patrons.

NSU Station- This station is an aerial station located at Brambleton Avenue that serves the main campus of Norfolk State University (NSU). An elevator and stairs provide access to the station. Bus Routes 9, 13, and 18 serve the station.

Ballentine/Broad Creek Station- This station is located on Ballentine Road at the entrance and exit ramps of I-264 near Norfolk State University. The at-grade, side-platform station serves the eastern end of the NSU campus and several residential neighborhoods: Middletown Arch, Stonebridge Crossing, Chesterfield Heights, and the Broad Creek Renaissance. The station provides 105 parking spaces and a bus connection with Route 18.

4 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide Light Rail Project

Ingleside Road Station- This station is located on the western side of Ingleside Road between Mississippi Avenue and I-264 and serves the adjacent residential neighborhood. No bus connections are provided at the at-grade, side-platform station, and on-street parking is available to neighborhood residents by permit only.

Military Highway Station- This station consists of station side platforms and at-grade alignment on the south side of Curlew Drive and the park-and-ride facility on the north side. Both the platforms and the parking are located to the west of Military Highway. There are two bus bays and 232 parking spaces. The station is served by Routes 15, 23, and 967.

Newtown Road Station- This station is located at the eastern terminus of the project on Newtown Road and includes an at-grade, single platform; four bus bays; and 266 parking spaces. Overflow parking in the amount of 708 spaces is leased by HRT from the First Baptist Church of Norfolk. This parking lot located north of the station on Kempsville Road is primarily utilized during special events, but it is available to riders at any time. The station serves residential neighborhoods, the Interstate Corporate Center, and Sentara Lehigh Memorial Hospital. Bus Routes 20, 22, 25, 27, and 28 serve the station. The station also includes a sound wall to mitigate noise impacts from idling buses in the eastern terminal station.

Support Facilities (SCC 30) The Norfolk Tide Facility (NTF) is located just east of NSU Station on a parcel that encompasses approximately seven acres of land. The facility houses light rail vehicle maintenance, rail operations/dispatch, and the Operations Control Center (OCC).The NTF also serves as an operator relief point along the mainline. The NTF has the following yard tracks: Y-1E, Y-1W, Y-2, Y-3, Y-3 Future, Y-4, and L-1. The maintenance shop is approximately 28,000 square feet and includes a two-bay vehicle wash. The site includes 60 parking spaces. A second maintenance facility, Mangrove Maintenance Facility, is being leased to house systems maintenance and provide warehouse storage for maintenance of way material and spare parts. This additional facility was required when it was determined that routine systems and other right-of-way maintenance would not be contracted, but handled by internal forces.

The as-built project also includes a temporary building at Sewell’s Point, originally erected to test and commission vehicles. The temporary building is a 120-foot by 25-foot pre-fabricated fabric tent with a concrete platform that was needed due to delays in the construction of the vehicle maintenance facility and yard. The LRT vehicles were scheduled to be delivered to the yard, but the yard construction was 18 months behind schedule. A temporary spur track was constructed to connect the mainline NSRR freight tracks with a temporary LRT maintenance building, and HRT was able to arrange the LRT vehicles to be delivered by train. The building and spur track were initially intended to be temporary, but HRT decided

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 5

The Tide Light Rail Project

to keep them both. Minor upgrades to the spur track were completed to make the track permanent, and the building remains in use post project implementation as a covered storage facility.

Two USTs on the site of Newtown Road Station and three tanks at Bollard’s Chicken at NSU Station were also removed as part of the project.

New Norfolk Southern Connection at Sewell’s Point Branch- The project required adding a new Norfolk Southern freight siding track from the north-south Sewell’s Point Branch to the east-west line in order to deliver the LRT vehicles. Systems (SCC 50) Traction Power Substations- Seven 1.0 megawatt (MW) capacity TPSS facilities were constructed for the project. Table 3 provides descriptions of the locations of the TPSS facilities as constructed. Three TPSSs

6 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide Light Rail Project

were constructed with building facades to mitigate adverse visual impacts: 2nd Street (TPSS #1), York Street (TPSS #2), and Newtown Road (TPSS #7). The need to mitigate these impacts was identified early in the planning process and included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

Table 3 As-Built TPSS Locations TPSS Location Engineering Station Location Description TPSS #1 South side of tracks, Second Street 119+00 east of Second St. TPSS #2 North side of tracks, York Street Station 141+90 across from station TPSS #3 Holt Street under the I- Holt Street 235+25 264 structure TPSS #4 VMSF 262+85 West of shop building TPSS #5 East of I-264 at western Sewell’s Point Bridge 327+25 base of bridge TPSS #6 East of Corporate Blvd., Military Highway north side of tracks 430+00 Station across from station on Curlew Drive TPSS #7 Eastern terminus, Newtown Road Station 492+00 eastern end of station Source: Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project As-Built Drawings, January 2008.

Signaling and Communications- The project includes a train signaling system between NSU Station and Newtown Road Station. The system in operation is an automatic block signaling (ABS) system which prevents trains from colliding with one another when operating on the same track. There are also three sets of localized track signals along the alignment: lockouts at EVMC and Newtown Road Station approaches and an island circuit in the yard at the shop entrance. The project also includes a communication system and an operations control center (OCC). The OCC is located in the shop building and it houses a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system on a fiber optic network that allows the controllers to see the locations of the trains in the signalized territory between NSU Station and Newtown Road Station and allows communication and administrative control between the TPSS facilities and the OCC.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 7

The Tide Light Rail Project

were temporary construction easements. Nine residential and eight business relocations were required, for a total of 17 relocations. All necessary right of way documents were platted and recorded as part of the project work.

Physical Scope Milestone Comparison Table 4 provides a comparison of The Tide LRT Project as built with the project as predicted at Entry into PE, Entry into Final Design, and the FFGA. The comparison is organized by FTA Standard Cost Category.

Table 4 The Tide Physical Scope Milestone Comparison FTA Standard Cost Category (SCC) Unit As-Built Entry into Entry into FFGA PE Final Design 10 GUIDEWAY and TRACK ELEMENTS 10.01 Guideway: At-grade, exclusive ROW TF 265 - 265 265 10.02 Guideway: At grade, semi-exclusive TF 59,668 - 60,639 60,639 10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic TF 2,190 - 2,190 2,190 10.04 Guideway: Aerial TF 12,396 - 12,396 12,396 10.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill TF 1,870 - 1,870 1,870 10.09 Track: Direct Fixation TF 12,396 - 12,396 12,396 10.10 Track: Embedded TF 16,088 - 15,828 15,828 10.11 Track: Ballasted TF 47,985 - 49,136 49,136 10.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) No. 8 turnouts EA 14 - 14 14 No. 10 turnouts EA 1 - 0 0 10.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening Vibration dampening EA 0 0 0 0 Noise dampening – vehicle stick lubricators Set 9 9 9 9 Noise dampening – wayside rail lubricators EA 10 0 0 0 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL 20.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform EVMC/Fort Norfolk Station platform EA 1 1 1 1 York Street/Freemason Station platform EA 2 2 2 2 Monticello Station platform EA 1 1 1 1 MacArthur Square Station platform EA 2 2 2 2 Civic Plaza Station platform EA 2 2 2 2 Harbor Park Station platform EA 1 1 1 1 Ballentine/Broad Creek Station platform EA 2 2 2 2 Ingleside Road Station platform EA 2 2 2 2

8 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 4 The Tide Physical Scope Milestone Comparison FTA Standard Cost Category (SCC) Unit As-Built Entry into Entry into FFGA PE Final Design Military Highway Station platform EA 2 2 2 2 Newtown Road Station platform EA 1 1 1 1 Station Shelter (1 per platform, except at EA 18 16 16 16 MacArthur Square Station) EA 20.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, EA terminal, platform NSU Station platform EA 1 1 1 1 Station Shelter (1 per platform) EA 1 1 1 1 20.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, EA terminal, platform EA 0 0 0 0 20.07 Elevators, escalators Elevators EA 1 1 1 1 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 30.01 Admin. bldg., office, sales, storage, revenue counting (included in 30.02 Light Maintenance Facility) EA 0 0 0 0 30.02 Light Maintenance Facility NTF (vehicle maintenance facility) EA 1 1 1 1 30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility None EA 0 0 0 0 30.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Bldg. Facility on Mangrove EA 1 0 0 0 30.05 Yard and Yard Track Yard track TF 6,414 - 5,734 5,734 Turnouts (No. 8 Turnouts) EA 9 - - 9 Parking area SP 69 - - 60 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork Non-revenue demolition/clearing Ac 7.73 - 6.70 6.70 Mainline demolition/clearing Ac 45.45 - 45.99 45.99 Park-and-Ride demolition/clearing Ac 8.04 - 10.78 10.78 40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation Drainage and Irrigation LS LS LS LS LS Wet Utilities LS LS LS LS LS Dry Utilities LS LS LS LS LS Private Utilities LS LS LS LS LS 40.03 Hazardous Materials, Contaminated Soil Removal/Mitigation, Groundwater Treatment Asbestos abatement for building demolition EA 1 1 1 1 40.04 Environmental Mitigation, e.g, Wetlands,

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 9

The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 4 The Tide Physical Scope Milestone Comparison FTA Standard Cost Category (SCC) Unit As-Built Entry into Entry into FFGA PE Final Design Historic/Archeological Wetland Mitigation EA 1 1 1 1 40.05 Site Structures, including Retaining Walls, Sound Walls Retaining walls (1 location: Military Hwy PNR) EA 1 - - 1 Noise walls (1 location: Newtown Road Station) EA 1 - 1 1 Sound insulation EA 0 0 0 0 40.06 Pedestrian/Bike Access and Accommodation, Landscaping Station Landscaping and Irrigation 1 1 1 1 Station Pedestrian Access (Ramps, 2 per EA 30 - 32 32 platform) Station Bike Access (Bike racks on concrete EA 12 0 0 0 pads) 40.07 Automobile, Bus, Van Access Ways, including Roads, Parking Lots York Street/Freemason Station Park-and-Ride SP 0 128 0 0 Ballentine/Broad Creek Station Park-and-Ride SP 105 100 100 100 Military Highway Station Park-and-Ride SP 232 330 232 232 Newtown Road Station Park-and-Ride SP 266 266 266 266 40.08 Temporary Facilities and Other Indirect Costs During Construction Siding track and commissioning building EA 1 0 0 0 50 SYSTEMS 50.01 Train Control and Signals ABS Wayside Aspect LF 15,840 0 0 0 50.02 Traffic Signals and Crossing Protection Total crossings (pedestrian and/or vehicle) EA 87 - - - Traffic signals EA 45 - - - Crossing protection (Flashers and Gates) EA 15 - - - 50.03 Traction Power Supply: Substations EA 7 7 7 7 50.04 Traction Power Distribution: Catenary and Third Rail Catenary 1 1 1 1 50.05 Communications Fiber optic system, SCADA 1 0 0 0 50.06 Fare Collection System and Equipment Station TVMs (2 per station, plus three spares) EA 25 - - 25 50.07 Central Control Control Center at NTF 1 1 1 1 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 60.01 Purchase or Lease of Real Estate

10 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 4 The Tide Physical Scope Milestone Comparison FTA Standard Cost Category (SCC) Unit As-Built Entry into Entry into FFGA PE Final Design Full acquisitions EA 21 - - >10 Partial acquisitions EA 29 - - - Permanent easements EA 35 - - - Permanent subsurface easements EA 18 - - - Temporary construction easements EA 54 - - - 60.02 Relocation of Existing Households and Businesses Residential relocations EA 9 - 7 7 Business relocations EA 8 - 3 3 70 VEHICLES 70.01 Light Rail EA 9 9 9 9 70.04 Bus EA 0 0 0 0 70.05 Other EA 0 0 0 0 70.06 Non-revenue vehicles EA 2 0 0 0 70.07 Spare Parts LRV spare parts kit EA 9 9 9 9 Maintenance-of-way spare parts 1 0 0 0 Source: HRT, URS, 2014.

Physical Scope at Entry into PE The project as described at Entry into PE was a 7.4-mile light rail system comprised of exclusive, double- tracked guideway with sections of shared street ROW. Eleven stations were included in the project. Revenue operations were predicted to begin in the Summer of 2008.

Guideway and Track Elements (SCC 10) Guideway Subcategories- Entry into PE identified 1.21 miles of above-grade guideway, zero miles of below grade, and 6.20 miles of at-grade guideway. The entire 7.41-mile length was planned to be in exclusive or semi-exclusive guideway (no areas of mixed traffic).

Track Subcategories- The project was planned to include embedded track for all downtown streets in a semi-exclusive ROW except for use by emergency vehicles.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The 7.41 mile corridor predicted at Entry into PE did not accurately anticipate the as-built project due to slight changes at the western terminus of the project. The project corridor was shortened by 450 feet (0.08 mile) at EVMC Station during construction, which reduced corridor length to approximately 7.33 miles. Additionally, the single track portion of the alignment was extended to a location from just west of Colley Avenue to its current location 420 feet

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 11

The Tide Light Rail Project

east of Colley Avenue at the same time, which reduced the track feet of the as-built project as compared to the predictive milestones.

The Entry into PE milestone also did not accurately anticipate the track elements of the as-built project. Red surface embedded concrete was added to a section of the project in the CBD. This change occurred after the FFGA was executed due to a request by the City of Norfolk. The York Street Crossover was changed from a left-hand crossover to a right-hand crossover after the FFGA was executed. Additionally, a permanent siding switch/track was constructed at the location of the site initially constructed as a temporary vehicle inspection site before revenue operations that then became a permanent facility for storage. The planned grade crossing at the Military Highway Park-and-Ride was eliminated after the FFGA was executed, due to a necessary change in the location of the park-and-ride.

Stations (SCC 20) Eleven stations were planned at this stage of project development, and they were planned to be constructed as one-car platforms but would be designed to accommodate expansion to three-car platforms.

Woodis Station was a potential future station between EVMC/Fort Norfolk Station and York Station. The future station has been included in plans at each milestone discussed in this document and was included in the Contract 40 “conformed plans.” It was proposed to be located just east of Second Street, however, was not constructed as part of the final project. Table 5 summarizes the station characteristics proposed at Entry into PE.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The predicted station and platform designs at Entry into PE did not accurately anticipate these elements in the as-built project. The constructed project consists of one-car platforms at nine stations, a two-car platform at MacArthur Station, and an elevated, two-car platform at NSU Station, rather than one-car platforms for all stations. All stations are designed to accommodate future expansion to a two-car platform, not a three-car platform as planned at Entry into PE. The station platform concept at Entry into PE included prefabricated barrel vault shelters, functional railings, and minimal information signage. The shelter concepts and decorative railings were proposed in 2007, but were not implemented on the plans, nor were the associated costs incurred until 2008, after the FFGA signing. The information kiosk design was not finalized until 2010.

The general station locations predicted at Entry into PE accurately anticipated the as-built locations, however specific siting of the stations differed in the case of EVMC Station and Military Highway Station. EVMC Station as constructed is approximately 300 feet to the east of where it was planned to be at the FFGA stage. HRT was not able to acquire all the land necessary for construction of the station as planned, therefore it had to be shortened and moved. The as-built platform is 450 feet east of the FFGA location. Due to this change, the single track at the western terminus was extended beyond the planned length and a switch was moved east of Colley Avenue. The as-built switch location is 600 feet east of the location in the FFGA. Additionally, no bus bays or shelters at the EVMC Station were accounted for in the FFGA, but the City decided to build two bus bays with funds from the City’s capital budget. Two bus shelters were built at project cost to accompany the bus bays.

12 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide Light Rail Project

The Military Highway Park-and-Ride was constructed in a different location than was identified in the FFGA. A categorical exclusion was prepared for this change. The parking lot was identified in the FFGA on the south side of the alignment and south of Curlew Drive. Due to development on the identified parcel before HRT was able to acquire it, the planned park-and-ride had to be moved to a new location. The location chosen was on the north side of Curlew Drive and north of the station platform, and that is where the parking lot was ultimately constructed.

Several station names evolved over the course of the planning process. Medical Center became EVMC/Fort Norfolk, York Street became York Street/Freemason, Freemason District became Monticello, Plume Street became MacArthur Square, Government Center became Civic Plaza, Norfolk State University became NSU, Ballentine Boulevard became Ballentine/Broad Creek, and Ingleside became Ingleside Road. Table 6 highlights the station name changes from Entry to PE to the as-built condition.

Table 5 Station Characteristics at Entry into PE Station Platform Type Bus Bays Parking Comparison to As-Built Medical Center Side platform change; Center Yes 0 No Change in bus bays/parking* York Street Parking changed to 0 Side None 128 spaces; no change in platform/bus bays Freemason District Center None 0 No Change Plume Street Side None 0 No Change Government Center Side platform change; Center On-street 0 Bus bays changed to 1; No change in parking Harbor Park Center platform change; bus bays Side On-street 1,100 changed to 0; parking changed to 176 Norfolk State Center None 0 No Change University Ballentine Boulevard Side platform change; parking changed to Center On-street 100 105; no change to bus bays Ingleside Side platform change; Center None 0 no change to bus bays/parking^ Military Highway Side platform change; parking changed to Center Yes 330 232; no change to bus bays

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 13

The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 5 Station Characteristics at Entry into PE Station Platform Type Bus Bays Parking Comparison to As-Built Newtown Road Parking changed to Center Yes 266 266; no change in platform/bus bays Source: Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Section 5309 New Starts Submission for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005, August 2002 and August 2003. *While there is parking available at EVMC/Fort Norfolk Station at certain times of day, this parking was not part of the New Starts project. ^Permit parking for neighborhood residents exists on-street adjacent to the station, however this parking was not part of the New Starts project.

Table 6 Station Names at Entry into PE and As Built Entry into PE As Built Medical Center EVMC/Fort Norfolk York Street York Street/Freemason Freemason District Monticello Plume Street MacArthur Square Government Center Civic Plaza Harbor Park Harbor Park Norfolk State University NSU Ballentine Boulevard Ballentine/Broad Creek Ingleside Ingleside Road Military Highway Military Highway Newtown Road Newtown Road Source: URS, 2014.

Support Facilities (SCC 30) The Vehicle Storage and Maintenance Facility (VSMF) was planned to be constructed in a linear piece of Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)-owned land bounded by the tracks to the north, I-264 to the south, and Brambleton Avenue to the west. It would include a vehicle wash, maintenance building, maintenance of way building, and a yard. The approximately seven-acre site would be used for light repairs; heavy maintenance would occur off-site at a location to be determined. On the east side, the facility would extend into the LRT track approximately 450 feet west of the proposed Ballentine Boulevard Station. Storage for 15 vehicles, not including storage within the shop, would be available.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The VSMF predicted at Entry into PE did not accurately anticipate the as-built NTF due to the following changes that occurred after the FFGA was executed: the addition of the OCC, upgrades to the planned façade of the building, and an increase in the parking capacity. Addition of the OCC did not change the footprint of the building, however the addition did require some interior spaces to be reconfigured.

14 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide Light Rail Project

After the FFGA was executed, the shop building plan was changed from a pre-fabricated metal building to a building with a brick façade. The foundation plans had to be changed to accommodate the new building façade plans. The as-built project also includes two additional support facilities that were added to the project after the FFGA: a temporary building at Sewell’s Point to test and commission vehicles and the lease of a spare parts storage facility and rail operations support on Mangrove Avenue. The temporary building is a 120-foot by 25-foot pre-fabricated fabric tent with a concrete platform that was needed due to delays in the construction of the yard. The LRT vehicles were scheduled to deliver to the yard, but the yard construction was 18 months behind schedule. A temporary spur track was constructed to connect the mainline with the temporary building, and HRT was able to arrange the vehicles to be delivered by train. The building and spur track were initially intended to be temporary, but HRT decided to keep them both. Minor upgrades to the spur track were completed to make the track permanent, and the building remains in use post project implementation as a storage facility.

Sitework and Special Conditions (SCC 40) Work planned under SCC 40 at Entry into PE included yard sitework, site utilities, utility relocation, environmental mitigation, and extension of pedestrian bridge near the yard.

Hazardous Materials and Contaminated Soil Removal/Mitigation- The Kirn Library site was the planned site for Plume Street Station, so demolition of the library would be required. Based on preliminary environmental studies, it was anticipated that minimal asbestos abatement would be required in the demolition process for the building.

Wetlands Mitigation- Predicted wetlands mitigation for the project consisted of constructing a 2.8-acre wetland at a site on the Elizabeth River. The mitigation was anticipated at this phase of the project due to potential project impacts to wetlands along the corridor.

Pedestrian Bridge- At Entry into PE, it was known that an existing pedestrian bridge over I-264 near the future shop and yard would need to be either modified or removed before rail operations began. Ultimately, an extended path was constructed so that it could maintain its functionality while not interfering with rail operations.

Utility Relocations/Protection- It was assumed that most public and private utilities would not need to be relocated but protected or adjusted in some manner during construction. The project management team during Final Design found that most of the private utilities in the Central Business District (CBD) were very old or had been reconstructed numerous times as the CBD changed. From January 2007 through August 2007, the project design team worked with the City of Norfolk to address all the public utility relocations that need to be performed during construction. Most of the relocations identified by the City were addressed, but the final design did not reflect all these relocations needed to construct the project in the CBD.

All private utilities were asked to attend individual meetings with the project management in August 2007. These meetings were done to officially notify each private utility that the Norfolk “Franchise Agreements” would be enforced to relocate their utilities within the Public Right-of Way. From August 2007 to the issuance of the major civil construction contracts meetings with the private utilities discussed the options for relocations but no relocations were incorporated into the conformed plans.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 15

The Tide Light Rail Project

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The sitework and special conditions predicted at Entry into PE did not accurately anticipate the as-built condition due to several changes that occurred after the FFGA was executed. The demolition of the former Kirn Library and other asbestos- contaminated buildings required more elaborate asbestos abatement techniques to be utilized during the demolition process than was anticipated, due to the reliance on an inadequate level of asbestos site assessment during the project.

Systems (SCC 50) A signaling system was not planned at this stage of project planning. Line-of-sight operations were deemed appropriate for the project.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The signaling and communications plan at Entry into PE did not accurately anticipate the as-built systems for the project due to changes that occurred after the FFGA was executed. A review of the project by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation as part of their safety oversight responsibilities resulted in the addition of a signal and communications systems, as described in the as-built project description and the FFGA Systems section.

Right-of-Way and Land (SCC 60) The proposed ROW was a mix of city streets, privately-owned parcels, and a NSRR-owned freight rail line. NSRR intended to abandon this portion of the alignment, as no active service had operated on this segment since December, 2002. At Entry into PE, HRT, NSU, the City of Norfolk, and the City of Virginia Beach were in the process of executing an MOU to jointly purchase the NSRR alignment.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The right-of-way needs predicted at Entry into PE accurately anticipated the right-of-way required for the as-built project, to the extent that the needs were assessed at the Entry into PE milestone. Temporary and permanent easements were not fully and precisely determined and documented until after the FFGA was executed.

Vehicles (SCC 70) Nine LRVs were to be procured for the project at the Entry into PE phase.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The number of LRVs predicted at Entry into PE accurately anticipated the as-built condition of the project.

Physical Scope at Entry into Final Design Revenue operations were scheduled to commence in January of 2010 at Entry into Final Design.

Guideway and Track Elements (SCC 10) Guideway Subcategories- Exclusive double-track guideway with some sections of shared street ROW was planned at this stage of the project. Table 7 summarizes guideway and track elements at Entry into Final Design. At Entry into Final Design, it was anticipated that the existing freight bridge over Broad Creek would be rehabilitated and used as the eastbound track of the Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project. A

16 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide Light Rail Project

new parallel structure would be built for the westbound track. This decision was estimated to save $2.5M, but it was not ultimately carried out in the completed project.

Track Subcategories- Track elements included direct fixation, open deck, embedded, ballasted, and full depth crossing. Table 7 provides a summary of track elements at Entry into Final Design.

Table 7 Final Design Guideway and Track Elements Guideway Length (Track miles) Element At Grade 11.95 mi Below Grade 0.00 mi Aerial 2.35 mi Retained Fill 0.35 mi Total 14.65 mi Exclusive ROW 2.75 mi Semi-exclusive ROW 11.48 mi Mixed-use ROW 0.41 mi Track Element Direct Fixation 0.36 mi Embedded 3.00 mi Ballasted 8.97 mi Open Deck 1.98 mi Full-Depth Crossing 0.33 mi Total 14.65 mi

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The 7.41 mile corridor predicted at Entry into Final Design did not accurately anticipate the as-built project due to slight changes at the western terminus of the project. The project corridor was shortened by 450 feet (0.08 mile) at EVMC Station during construction, which reduced corridor length to approximately 7.33 miles. Additionally, the single track portion of the alignment was extended to a location from just west of Colley Avenue to its current location 420 feet east of Colley Avenue at the same time, which reduced the track feet of the as-built project as compared to the predictive milestones.

The Entry into Final Design milestone also did not accurately anticipate the track elements of the as-built project. Red surface embedded concrete was added to a section of the project in the CBD. This change occurred after the FFGA was executed due to a request from an HRT Commissioner. The York Street Crossover was changed from a left-hand crossover to a right-hand crossover after the FFGA was executed. Additionally, a permanent siding switch/track was constructed at the location of the site initially constructed as a temporary vehicle inspection site before revenue operations that then became a permanent facility for storage. The planned grade crossing at the Military Highway Park-and-Ride was eliminated after the FFGA was executed, due to a necessary change in the location of the park-and-ride.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 17

The Tide Light Rail Project

Stations (SCC 20) Table 8 provides a summary of station characteristics at Entry into Final Design. At this stage of the project, Government Center Station (now Civic Plaza Station) was planned to be a center platform but was ultimately constructed with two side platforms. Station platforms were planned to be constructed as one-car, 90-foot platforms but would be designed to accommodate three-car platforms in the future. Center station platforms would be approximately 20 feet wide with one platform between the two LRT tracks and side platforms would be approximately 12 feet wide with one platform on each side of the LRT tracks.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The general station locations predicted at Entry into Final Design accurately anticipated the as-built locations, however specific siting of the stations differed in the case of EVMC Station and Military Highway Station. Medical Center Station was moved slightly to the east after the FFGA was executed, so the as-built station location is slightly different than predicted at the milestones discussed in this technical memorandum. The Military Highway Station platform and park-and-ride sites predicted at Entry into Final Design did not accurately anticipate as-built sites, as sites shifted post-FFGA due to land availability.

EVMC Station as constructed is approximately 300 to the east of where it was planned to be at the FFGA stage. HRT was not able to acquire all the land necessary for construction of the station as planned, therefore it had to be shortened and moved. The as-built platform is 450 feet east of the Final Design location. Due to this change, the single track at the western terminus was extended beyond the planned length and a switch was moved east of Colley Avenue. The as-built switch location is 600 feet east of the location in the Final Design. Additionally, no bus bays or shelters at the EVMC Station were accounted for in the Final Design, but the City decided to build two bus bays with funds from the City’s capital budget. Two bus shelters were built at project cost to accompany the bus bays.

The Military Highway Park-and-Ride was constructed in a different location than was identified in the Entry into Final Design and the FFGA. A categorical exclusion was prepared for this change. The parking lot was identified in the FFGA on the south side of the alignment and south of Curlew Drive. Due to development on the identified parcel before HRT was able to acquire it, the planned park-and-ride had to be moved to a new location. The location chosen was on the north side of Curlew Drive and north of the station platform, and that is where the parking lot was ultimately constructed.

The predicted station and platform designs at Entry into Final Design did not accurately anticipate these elements in the as-built project. The constructed project consists of one-car platforms at nine stations, a two-car platform at MacArthur Station, and an elevated, two-car platform at NSU Station, rather than one-car platforms for all stations. All stations are designed to accommodate future expansion to a two- car platform, not a three-car platform as planned at Entry into Final Design. The station platform concept at Entry into Final Design included prefabricated barrel vault shelters, functional railings, and minimal information signage. The shelter concepts and decorative railings were proposed in 2007, but were not implemented on the plans, nor were the associated costs incurred until 2008, after the FFGA signing. The information kiosk design was not finalized until 2010.

18 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 8 Station Characteristics at Entry into Final Design Platform Station Parking Comparison to As- Station Bus Bays Type Profile Spaces Built Medical Center At grade Bus bays changed Side Yes (4)^ 0 to 2 York Street Side At grade None 0 No change Monticello Center At grade None 0 No change Plume Street Side At grade None 0 No change Government Center At grade Side platform Center On-street 0 change; bus bays changed to 1 Harbor Park At grade Bus bays changed Center On-street 1,100 to 0; parking changed to 176 Norfolk State University Aerial Bus bays changed Center On-street 0 to 0 Ballentine Boulevard At grade Parking changed to Side On-street 100* 105 Ingleside Side At grade None 0 No change Military Highway At grade 232 (4 Bus bays changed Kiss-and- to 2; parking Side Yes (3) Ride changed to 232 spaces) Newtown Road At grade Center platform 266 (7 change; bus bays Kiss-and- Side Yes (4) changed to 3; Ride parking changed to spaces) 266 Source: Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project FEIS, 2006. FY08 New Starts submittal, June 2006. ^Bus pull-out spaces are not located on the station site, but rather a block away along Southampton Avenue *Shared arrangement with NSU

Support Facilities (SCC 30) The VSMF was planned to be constructed in a linear piece of VDOT-owned land bounded by the tracks to the north, I-264 to the south, and Brambleton Avenue to the west. It would include a vehicle wash, maintenance building, maintenance of way building, and a yard. The approximately seven-acre site would be used for light repairs; heavy maintenance would occur off-site at a location to be determined. On the east side, the facility extends into the LRT track approximately 450 feet west of the proposed Ballentine Boulevard Station. Storage for 15 vehicles, not including storage within the shop, would be available. Approximately 1.4 miles of track would be constructed for the VSMF.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 19

The Tide Light Rail Project

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The VSMF predicted at Entry into Final Design did not accurately anticipate the as-built NTF due to the following changes: the addition of the OCC, upgrades to the planned façade of the building, and changes to parking capacity. Addition of the OCC did not change the footprint of the building. After the FFGA was executed, the shop building plan was changed from a pre-fabricated metal building to a building with a brick façade. The foundation plans had to be changed to accommodate the new building façade plans. The footprint and the interior design of the building were not altered by this change.

Sitework and Special Conditions (SCC 40) Hazardous Materials and Contaminated Soil Removal/Mitigation- The Kirn Memorial Library site was the planned site for Plume Street Station, so demolition of the library would be required. Due to preliminary environmental studies, it was anticipated that minimal asbestos abatement would be required in the demolition process for the building.

Wetlands Mitigation- Predicted wetlands mitigation for the project consisted of constructing a 2.8-acre wetland on a site on the eastern branch of the Elizabeth River. The mitigation was anticipated due to potential project impacts to wetlands along the corridor.

Pedestrian Bridge- At Entry into Final Design, concerns were documented regarding the existing pedestrian bridge over I-264 connecting the NSU campus north of the highway to the south side of the highway. An unprotected grade crossing is utilized by pedestrians, and the bridge connects at the proposed site of the maintenance facility. Pedestrian traffic from the bridge would need to be re- directed or the bridge would need to be removed before implementation of the LRT project. The FEIS indicated plans to extend an existing pedestrian bridge over I-264 near the future shop and yard over the LRT tracks.

Utility Relocations- At this stage it was assumed that existing franchise agreements between the City of Norfolk and various private utilities would cover the majority of the identified utility relocations. It was also anticipated that a number of unidentified utilities would be encountered, due to the age of the city facilities.

Existing Freight Bridge over Broad Creek- It was recommended that the existing freight bridge over Broad Creek would be rehabilitated for the LRT project as a cost-saving measure. The rehabilitated

20 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide Light Rail Project

bridge would carry the eastbound track and a new bridge structure would be built parallel to the existing structure to carry the westbound track.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The sitework and special conditions predicted at Entry into Final Design did not accurately anticipate the as-built conditions due to several changes that occurred after the FFGA was executed. The demolition of the former Kirn Library and other asbestos- contaminated buildings required more elaborate asbestos abatement techniques to be utilized during the demolition process than was anticipated, due to the reliance on an inadequate level of asbestos site assessment during the project.

Another prediction at this milestone that did not prove accurate was the plan to rehabilitate the freight bridge over Broad Creek. This idea was initiated as a cost-saving measure, but ultimately, it was not feasible and did not take place; instead, a new, two-track bridge was constructed, and all wooden piles were removed.

Systems (SCC 50) TPSS- In response to stakeholder and community input, three of the seven proposed TPSS facilities were identified to receive aesthetic treatments to shield the facilities from view, as described in the as-built TPSS discussion. The types of treatments proposed for TPSS #1, TPSS #2, and TPSS #7 include masonry construction, walls, and vegetation. The three locations and the general mitigation techniques did not change from this stage in the planning process to the as-built condition. Seven TPSSs were planned, each being one to two miles apart. The TPSSs would provide 750 volts direct current (d.c.) to the overhead catenary system (OCS). Table 9 summarizes the predicted TPSS locations at Entry into Final Design.

Table 9 TPSS Locations at Entry into Final Design Engineering Comparison TPSS Location Description Station with As-Built TPSS #1 Medical North side of Brambleton Ave. just Change- moved Center 103+40 east of existing pedestrian overpass to Second Street Station TPSS #2 York Street Between York St. and Brambleton Ave. 141+75 No change Station on west side of Yarmouth St. TPSS #3 North side of I-264 between Holt St. Harbor Park 235+25 and concrete basin just east of the No change Station station TPSS #4 VSMF Site 263+35 In the yard No change TPSS #5 Between Sewell’s Point tracks and South Beach Branch connection to Sewell’s Point, approximately 30 feet Holt Street 332+00 No change south of track centerline (between Ballentine Boulevard and Ingleside Stations)

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 21

The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 9 TPSS Locations at Entry into Final Design Engineering Comparison TPSS Location Description Station with As-Built TPSS #6 Military Change- moved South of Curlew Dr. just west of the Highway 426+00 north of tracks station Station and east TPSS #7 Newtown Northwest corner of Bangor Ave. and Road 492+00 Newtown Rd. south of proposed No change Station station bus waiting area Source: FEIS, 2006.

Signaling and Communications- A very limited communication system was planned at Entry into Final Design. The system would have the capability to communicate to HRT via wireless antenna when there is a problem at a substation, such as a shutdown. The system would work like an alarm, with no ability for the OCC to communicate or interact remotely with the substations. Trouble-shooting of the problem could only occur at the site of the substation with the issue.

Crossing Protection- The grade separation analysis conducted for the FEIS resulted in the recommendation of one grade separation at Brambleton Avenue between Park Avenue and I-264. Grade separation was also recommended at Park Avenue and Clairborne Avenue due to their proximity to two other elevated sections. Holt Street was planned for grade separation due to its proximity to the NSRR Lamberts Point Branch grade separation. Four streets were identified as “at-grade crossing possible with delay to LRT trains:” Colley Avenue, Brambleton Avenue, Boush Street, and Ballentine Boulevard; these crossings were recommended for improvements to minimize delays due to the at-grade crossing. Table 10 provides a summary of the anticipated traffic control measures at Entry into Final Design.

Table 10 Grade Crossing Analysis at Entry into Final Design Traffic Control Measure Number of Grade Crossings Traffic Signal without Transit 2 Priority Traffic Signal with Transit Priority 17 Traffic Signal Interconnect 3 Automatic Crossing Gates 6 Supplemental Active Warning 5 Devices Grade Separations 4 Grade Crossing Closure 14 Recommended Grade Crossing Closure Suggested 2 Source: Norfolk LRT Project FEIS, 2005.

22 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide Light Rail Project

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The signaling and communications plan at Entry into Final Design did not accurately anticipate the as-built systems for the project due to changes that occurred after the FFGA was executed. A review of the project by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation as part of their safety oversight responsibilities resulted in the addition of signal and communications systems, as described in the as-built project description and the FFGA Systems section.

Right-of-Way and Land (SCC 60) The City of Norfolk and Norfolk Southern executed an MOU for the purchase of NSRR ROW on November 8, 2005, and a draft purchase and sale agreement was under review in June of 2006. It was anticipated that the purchase and sale agreement would be finalized by the Fall of 2006. An easement from VDOT would also be needed for the VSMF, and those discussions were underway.

In addition to these acquisitions, ten displacements were anticipated in the FEIS including three businesses and seven residences.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The right-of-way needs predicted at Entry into Final Design accurately anticipated the right-of-way required for the as-built project, to the extent that the needs were assessed at the Entry into Final Design milestone. Temporary and permanent easements were not fully and precisely determined and documented until after the FFGA was executed.

Vehicles (SCC 70) At Entry into Final Design, nine vehicles were planned for the system. Six LRVs would be used during peak periods, so at least three LRVs would not be in service at any given time. The low-floor, articulated vehicles would have a seated capacity of 70, total capacity of 150 people, and a maximum speed of 55 mph.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The number and type of LRVs predicted at Entry into Final Design accurately anticipated the as-built condition of the project.

Physical Scope at the FFGA Milestone The FFGA was issued on October 1, 2007. In the FFGA, HRT agreed to achieve revenue operations of the project on or before January 1, 2010. The information in this section documents what was included in the FFGA.

Guideway and Track Elements (SCC 10) The project as described in the FFGA was a 7.4-mile, double-tracked light rail system with dedicated ROW in the downtown portion of the alignment and utilizing abandoned Norfolk Southern Railroad ROW from NSU to Newtown Road. The FFGA included small portions of single track heading into each terminal station.

Guideway Subcategories- The project as presented in the FFGA included portions of exclusive at-grade guideway, semi-exclusive at-grade guideway, aerial guideway, and retained fill guideway. Approximately 4.6 miles of at-grade, semi-exclusive guideway was planned along the former Norfolk Southern Railroad

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 23

The Tide Light Rail Project

ROW portion of the alignment from the crossing of the Lamberts Point Branch to the Newtown Station at the eastern terminus of the project. Within the Norfolk Central Business District (CBD), approximately 1.5 miles of guideway were planned to be mixed-use, meaning that it would allow for cross-traffic. Aerial structure was planned for a total of approximately 0.83 miles in length at three creek crossings (Smith Creek, Broad Creek, Moseley Creek), two active Norfolk Southern freight crossings, and three roadway crossings (Park Avenue, Claiborne Avenue, Brambleton Avenue). Retained fill sections totaled approximately 0.48 miles in length and were primarily planned in the areas adjacent to I-264 between Lamberts Point railroad crossing and the Brambleton Avenue Bridge adjacent to Norfolk University. Other minor segments of retained fill were planned along York Street at the approach to the Smith Creek Bridge and at the Military Highway park-and-ride lot at Curlew Drive. Table 11 summarizes the guideway elements as described in the FFGA and compares the guideway at each milestone.

Table 11 Guideway Characteristics at Each Milestone (In Route Miles) Retained Exclusive Semi- Mixed- At Below Milestone Aerial Fill Total ROW exclusive use Grade Grade ROW ROW Entry into 6.20 0.00 1.21 N/A 7.41 7.41 0.00 0.00 PE Entry into 6.02 0.00 1.17 0.22 7.41 1.41 0.00 0.21 Final Design FFGA 6.02 0.00 1.17 0.22 7.41 1.41 5.79 0.21 As Built 5.95 0.00 1.17 0.22 7.34 1.41 5.72 0.21 Source: HRT, 2014.

Track Subcategories- The FFGA planned for four categories of track: direct fixation, embedded, ballasted, and special trackwork. Direct fixation track was planned for approximately 8,655 feet on the aerial structures of the project. Of that amount, 1,785 feet was true direct fixation and 6,870 feet was open deck track. Embedded track was planned to be utilized in the Norfolk Central Business District (CBD) in the amount of approximately 15,080 feet of track. Ballasted track was planned along the abandoned Norfolk Southern corridor and adjacent to some of the streets on the edge of the CBD. Ballasted track totaled 52,240 feet of track. The special trackwork included turnouts, crossovers, guard rail, restraining rail, two spring switches for the terminal stations, and track drains.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The 7.41 mile corridor predicted at the time of the FFGA did not accurately anticipate the as-built project due to slight changes at the western terminus of the project. The project corridor was shortened by 450 feet (0.08 mile) at EVMC Station during construction, which reduced corridor length to approximately 7.34 miles. Additionally, the single track portion of the alignment was extended to a location from just west of Colley Avenue to its current location 420 feet east of Colley Avenue at the same time, which reduced the track feet of the as-built project as compared to the predictive milestones.

The FFGA milestone also did not accurately anticipate the track elements of the as-built project. Red surface embedded concrete was added to a section of the project in the CBD. This change occurred after

24 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide Light Rail Project

the FFGA was executed due to a request by the City of Norfolk. The York Street Crossover was changed from a left-hand crossover to a right-hand crossover after the FFGA was executed. Additionally, a permanent siding switch/track was constructed at the location of the site initially constructed as a temporary vehicle inspection site before revenue operations that then became a permanent facility for storage. The planned grade crossing at the Military Highway Park-and-Ride was eliminated after the FFGA was executed, due to a necessary change in the location of the park-and-ride.

Stations (SCC 20) Eleven stations were included in the project as described in the FFGA. Park-and-ride facilities were planned at four of the stations and six would have bus transfer areas. • Park-and-Rides: o Harbor Park o Ballentine Boulevard o Military Highway o Newtown Road

• Bus Transfer Areas: o Medical Center o Government Center o NSU o Ballentine Boulevard o Military Highway o Newtown Road

Ingleside Station was planned to be a “walk-on” only station with no parking, bus transfer, or kiss-and- ride capabilities. Ten stations were planned to be at grade and one station (NSU Station) was planned to be aerial. NSU Station was planned in the FFGA to be located on the east side of Brambleton Avenue. Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The general station locations predicted in the FFGA accurately anticipated the as-built locations, however specific siting of the stations differed in the case of EVMC Station, NSU Station, and Military Highway Station. EVMC Station as constructed is approximately 300 feet to the east of where it was planned to be at the FFGA stage. HRT was not able to acquire all the land necessary for construction of the station as planned, therefore it had to be shortened and moved. The as-built platform is 450 feet east of the FFGA location. Due to this change, the single track at the western terminus was extended beyond the planned length and a switch was moved east of Colley Avenue. The as-built switch location is 600 feet east of the location in the FFGA. Additionally, no bus bays or shelters at the EVMC Station were accounted for in the FFGA, but the City decided to build two bus bays with funds from the City’s capital budget. Two bus shelters were built at project cost to accompany the bus bays.

NSU Station as constructed is on the west side of Brambleton Avenue rather than the east side as planned in the FFGA. This change occurred post-FFGA at the request of Norfolk State University. As part of the change, the station platform length increased from 90 feet to 174 feet.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 25

The Tide Light Rail Project

on the south side of the alignment and south of Curlew Drive. Due to development on the identified parcel before HRT was able to acquire it, the planned park-and-ride had to be moved to a new location. The location chosen was on the north side of Curlew Drive and north of the station platform, and that is where the parking lot was ultimately constructed.

Station shelters and railing were simple, minimal structures in the FFGA. The shelter was a barreled roof structure, and there was minimal railing planned. In 2008, the more elaborate structures and enhanced railing that were ultimately constructed were designed post-FFGA to meet City requests and requirements. Additionally, an operator restroom was added during construction at Newtown Road Station that had not been previously planned.

Support Facilities (SCC 30) The VSMF was planned to be constructed south of NSU and east of Brambleton Avenue, in an area of land between I-264 and the NSU campus. The facility was planned to accommodate nine vehicles but would be able to be expanded to accommodate up to 16. The facility would also include a vehicle wash. The building would have a footprint of approximately 23,000 square feet and an upper mezzanine storage area of 4,800 square feet. The yard, yard track, stormwater management and drainage facilities, and all other necessary items for the yard were also included in this category. The FFGA also included non-revenue vehicles and equipment consistent with full contract maintenance.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The VSMF predicted in the FFGA did not accurately anticipate the as-built NTF due to the following changes occurring after the FFGA was executed: the addition of the OCC, upgrades to the planned façade of the building, and an increase in parking capacity. Addition of the OCC did not change the footprint of the building, however the addition did require some interior spaces to be reconfigured. The shop building plan was changed from a pre-fabricated metal building to a building with a brick façade. The foundation plans had to be changed to accommodate the new building façade plans. The footprint and the interior design of the building were not altered by the change to a brick façade.

The as-built project also includes two additional support facilities that were added to the project after the FFGA: a temporary building at Sewell’s Point to test and commission vehicles and the lease of a spare parts storage facility and rail operations support on Mangrove Avenue. The temporary building is a 120-foot by 25-foot pre-fabricated fabric tent with a concrete platform that was needed due to delays in the construction of the yard. The LRT vehicles were scheduled to deliver to the yard, but the yard construction was 18 months behind schedule. A temporary spur track was constructed to connect the mainline with temporary building, and HRT was able to arrange the vehicles to be delivered by train. The building and spur track were initially intended to be temporary, but HRT decided to keep them both. Minor upgrades to the spur track were completed to make the track permanent, and the building remains in use post project implementation as a storage facility. Additionally, the maintenance plan predicted in the FFGA did not accurately anticipate the as-built condition. The FFGA planned for all maintenance to be contracted out to a third party. The plan changed post-FFGA to include primary maintenance performed in-house by HRT Operations and heavy maintenance to be out-sourced to a third party. As a result, the equipment and non-revenue vehicles acquired for the as-built project are different than what was planned in the FFGA.

26 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide Light Rail Project

Sitework and Special Conditions (SCC 40) Several types of work were included in this category. Demolition, clearing, and grading along the alignment were included. Examples of this work included: • Demolition of private residences for the construction of Newtown Road Station • Clearing and grading of the abandoned Norfolk Southern portion of the alignment Site utilities and relocation costs for public utilities were also included in this category. Private utility relocation costs were excluded, because such relocations are the responsibility of the utility owner under Virginia common law.

Environmental remediation and mitigation was included in this category. A small tidal wetland was planned for in the FFGA as mitigation for project impacts to regulated waters. Pedestrian/bike access and landscaping was also included in the category. Examples include: • Bike racks at every station except the aerial station • ADA compliant pedestrian ramps to station platforms • Bus transfer areas • Park-and-ride facilities • Vegetative buffers at park-and-rides, the yard and maintenance facility, and traction power substations In addition, automobile, bus, and van accessways were included in this category. Examples include: • Roads • Parking lots • Park-and-rides at Newtown Road, Military Highway, Ballentine Boulevard, and Harbor Park Stations

Two track removals were identified in the June 28, 2007 Plan and Profile Sheets. One was the removal of the existing track at Sewell’s Point Bridge, and the other was removal of an existing grade crossing at engineering station 447+00.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The former Kirn Library building was demolished for the construction of MacArthur Square Station. The demolition required asbestos abatement techniques to be utilized. Two other asbestos-contaminated buildings adjacent to the library site were also demolished for the station.

Predicted visual screening was generally accurate, with the exception of adding visual screening along the tracks adjacent to I-264 and providing brick facades for three TPSS facilities rather than only vegetative buffers.

Utility relocation predictions also did not align with what occurred in the as-built project. All civil contracts (Contracts 20, 30 and 40) assumed in the project specifications that the contractor would coordinate the relocations within its contract. The process for relocations differed depending on where

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 27

The Tide Light Rail Project

along the alignment the relocation was required. This can be broken down into three categories, Public Property, Norfolk Southern Right of Way and the Central Business District.

Dominion Virginia Power had underground electrical services within the Harbor Park and Government Center area that were not covered by the franchise agreement. Each location had to be designed and cost estimated by DVP and the project had to approve the cost estimate and pay for the relocation. Most of these relocations did not have an effect on time but were not in the project budget.

Norfolk Southern Right of Way (NS RR) relocations occurred within Contract 30. The NS RR agreement required the project to reimburse DVP for the relocation of overhead electrical distribution system since their utility was within the NS RR right of way. Each pole found to be in conflict with the light rail overhead contact wires had to be relocated. The project management team did not fully understand the complexities of this type of relocation and the effort it took to complete these relocations. This type of relocation had an overall effect on time and schedule since all the design work and relocations took place during the construction of this section of the light rail alignment. The cost of these relocations was not included with the project budget.

All of the private utilities companies would not commence relocation plans until DVP had settled on its approach to this section of the project. DVP started a fiscal survey of all its structures in December 2007 after the award of the FFGA. This survey was completed approximately in May 2008. It was found that the entire underground electrical network with the limits of the project needed to be replaced. Most of the structures and conduits had been modified to a point that relocation was not an option. DVP entered into a Design – Build Contract during the Summer of 2008 for the construction of a new duct bank system within the CBD. As DVP developed there planned relocations the other private utilities used these plans to establish if they need to be relocated and could stay in place. All of this had an effect on schedule and cost to Contract 40 and the other constructions contracts issued for work to be performed within the CBD. Some of these could have been addressed earlier in Final Design, when DVP requested a guarantee that their engineering design cost would be reimbursed if the project did not received an FFGA from the FTA.

Systems (SCC 50) This category included hand-held train radio communication equipment and an automatic vehicle location (AVL) system for tracking the light rail vehicles. Also included were 22 ticket vending machines (TVM), an emergency telephone system at the aerial station, traction power substations (TPSS), signal prioritization, and crossing protection.

TPSS- Seven traction power substations (TPSS) were planned at the FFGA stage of project development. Six were to be placed along the alignment and one at the yard. Table 12 summarizes TPSS locations at the time of the FFGA and compares these locations to the as-built locations. A wireless supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system for monitoring and controlling the traction power substations was also planned in the FFGA, however it was to be a rudimentary system that would only identify outages or other problems at the TPSS facilities but not be able to interact with the TPSS to power it off or manipulate it in any way.

28 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 12 TPSS Locations at FFGA Engineering Comparison to TPSS Location Location Description Station As-Built TPSS #1 Near future Woodis East of Second Street 118+75 No Change Station location TPSS #2 York Street Station 141+80 North side of station No Change TPSS #3 Near junction of LRT, Holt Street, NSRR Lambert’s Harbor Park Station 235+25 No Change Point Branch, and I-264 (south side of alignment) TPSS #4 VMSF Site 263+35 South side of alignment No Change TPSS #5 Sewell’s Point Bridge, on Holt Street 327+25 SE side of I-264 (south side No Change of alignment) TPSS #6 Military Highway 428+00 South of tracks Changed Station TPSS #7 Newtown Road Eastern Terminus, eastern 492+00 No Change Station end of station Source: Plan and Profile Sheets, June 28, 2007.

Signal Prioritization and Crossing Protection- Line-of-sight operation was planned for the project in the FFGA, so the FFGA scope does not include a signaling system, except for three sets of localized track signals: lockouts at EVMC and Newtown Road approaches and an island circuit in the yard at the shop entrance. Light rail signal priority was planned along the downtown portion of the alignment, except at the intersections of Charlotte and Boush Streets and St. Paul’s Boulevard at Government Center Plaza. Crossing protection for six gated crossings and signal prioritization equipment for the remaining crossings were planned and included in this category. An additional safety feature that was planned was the installation of missile screens, a type of barrier to prevent objects being thrown over bridges down onto the LRT tracks.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The signaling and communications plan in the FFGA did not accurately anticipate the as-built systems for the project due to changes that occurred after the FFGA was executed. One of the largest scope changes of the project occurred under SCC 50. It was determined after the FFGA was executed that line-of-sight operation would not be adequate from a safety perspective and that a signaling system would be required for safety reasons. After the FFGA was issued and before construction began, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation reviewed the project plans and determined that line-of-sight operation east of Downtown would be unsafe. The Commonwealth of Virginia mandated installation of a train signaling system, communication system, and an operations control center. A system was designed as a design-build project so as to minimize the delay to the rest of the project. Additionally, the SCADA planned in the FFGA was simpler than what was ultimately installed, due to the change from line-of-sight operations to signalized operations and the addition of the OCC.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 29

The Tide Light Rail Project

The TPSS visual screening plan in the FFGA did not accurately anticipate the as-built condition. Brick facades for three TPSS facilities were planned at earlier stages in the project as mitigation for adverse visual and aesthetic impacts. These items were removed from the FFGA for cost reasons and later reinstated during construction. The FFGA included only vegetative buffers for TPSS facilities. Additionally, the planned missile screening was removed during construction, because it was determined that it was an overly conservative item not typically installed for light rail projects.

Right-of-Way and Land (SCC 60) The FFGA included costs for full and partial parcel acquisitions, several franchise agreements, easements, and leases. This included legal services required for the process. Also included under this category were relocation costs for seven households and three businesses, and related legal services and court expenses. All of the households and two of the businesses were located in the Newtown Station area and needed to be removed in order to construct the bus turn-around and park-and-ride facilities. The third business was located downtown in the vicinity of York Street Station at Duke Street.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The right-of-way needs predicted in the FFGA accurately anticipated the right-of-way required for the as-built project, to the extent that the needs were assessed at the FFGA milestone. Temporary and permanent easements were generally known at this stage but were not precisely determined or documented. As such, the apparent scope change contributed to a portion of the capital cost differences for SCC 60.

Vehicles (SCC 70) Nine light rail vehicles were included in the project that was awarded the FFGA. The vehicles were planned to be equipped with a low floor to provide level boarding at the platforms of all eleven stations.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences- The number and type of LRVs predicted in the FFGA accurately anticipated the as-built condition of the project.

Conclusions and Lessons Learned The Physical Scope Technical Memorandum summarized the as-built scope of The Tide LRT Project and the anticipated scope of the project at three predictive milestones: Entry into PE, Entry into Final Design, and the FFGA. The memo also identified how well the as-built project was predicted at the three milestones. The analysis of the project across the milestones revealed that the overall project was generally well predicted. No significant alignment or profile changes occurred over the course of project planning. General station locations remained constant across milestones, although three station sites and one park and ride lot location changed after the FFGA was executed due to the availability of the planned parcels for the original sites. The most significant changes in the physical scope of the project were related to the Systems category (SCC 50). Adding a signaling system from east of Harbor Park Station to Newtown Road Station, an OCC, improved LRT/roadway downtown traffic signal priority coordination, and a robust communications system after the FFGA was executed are the key changes to the physical scope of the project.

The majority of other, more minor, changes also occurred post-FFGA, and many occurred during construction. Primary changes in this category include a complete revision of all station shelter and platform railing designs; the addition of the Newtown Road Operator’s Restroom and brick building

30 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide Light Rail Project

facades for the NTF; a change to black-colored OCS poles in downtown Norfolk; a change to red colored surface concrete in embedded track in downtown Norfolk; a non-revenue siding track; a significant increase in hazard mitigation signage, fencing, and barriers; the addition of visual screening along the tracks adjacent to I-264; and the deletion of proposed missile screens on roadways over the light rail with no pedestrian access.

Lessons Learned The main overarching lesson of The Tide LRT Project is the crucial importance of having personnel on staff who understand the critical path of rail development and construction as well as the interface with local jurisdictions. HRT has learned from The Tide experience and is now well-positioned and highly prepared from a staffing perspective to manage or coordinate future light rail expansion projects in a successful and efficient manner.

Another lesson of The Tide LRT Project is that cost-cutting measures in the early stages of the project could ultimately result in time delays and additional costs later if the cuts were not based on sound logic and analysis. System safety or project feasibility should not be compromised for the appearance of cost savings in the short term. HRT has also learned these lessons and have since completely transformed the culture of the organization to one of transparency and accountability.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 31

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

Appendix B: Capital Costs

Hampton Roads Transit Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project Capital Costs

Introduction This memorandum documents the capital costs of the Tide, Hampton Roads Transit’s (HRT) Norfolk Light Rail Transit (LRT) system. HRT’s governing body, Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads, was awarded a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) on October 1, 2007 by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through the Section 5309 New Starts program. The amount of the Federal New Starts Financial Contribution was $127,980,000, for a total estimated net project cost of $232.1 million.

This memorandum documents both the actual cost of the project and the forecasted costs for the project at project milestones during planning and design, evaluating the accuracy of those costs. The three prediction milestones evaluated herein as compared to the constructed project are: • Entry into Preliminary Engineering (PE) - November 4, 2002 • Entry into Final Design (FD) - September 2006 • Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) - October 2007

As-Built Capital Costs This section documents the actual, or as-built, capital costs of the project. Table 1 provides the actual project costs organized by FTA’s standard cost categories (SCCs). The actual as-built cost of the Tide Light Rail project was $315.7 million, as constructed between January 2008 and August 29, 2011, when revenue service began. Within the total cost, $187.8 million or 59% of the project expenditure was used for the physical elements (SCC 10 through SCC 50), and 41% or $128.8 million was used for purchasing right-of-way, vehicles, certain utility costs, and various elements of professional services (SCC 60 through 100).

Table 1 Actual Cost by FTA Standard Cost Category Actual Percent (After) Opening Date August 2011 Actual Cost in Year of Expenditure $ $315,755,511

10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS $83.3 26.6% 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL $1.0 0.3% 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS $12.3 3.9% 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS $55.9 17.9% 50 SYSTEMS $34.4 11.0% 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS $15.9 5.1%

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 1 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 1 Actual Cost by FTA Standard Cost Category Actual Percent (After) 70 VEHICLES $36.0 11.5% 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $76.8 23.7% 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $ - - 100 FINANCE CHARGES $ 0.05 0% Total Project Cost $315.8 100% Values for SCC categories in millions. Sources: HRT Accounting Documentation “Categorization of Project Costs FFGA & Concurrent Non-FFGA”, and separation of SCC code values indicated on the final contract payment applications.

Table 2 Project Contracts List HRT No. Contract Contract Description Final Contract Values Contract 10 LR 46401 Wetlands Mitigation Grandy Village $ 536,129.78 Contract 20 LR 46402 Viaduct at Brambleton $ 15,715,333.19 Track and Civil Elements - Norfolk Southern Contract 30 LR 46403 ROW (later Contract 40A, included in $ - Contract 40) Contract 40 LR 46404 Track and Civil Elements - Downtown $ 98,166,099.63 Contract 07-46527A T1 Noise and Vibration Monitoring $ 286,246.40 Contract 50653 DNC Business Signage $ 38,230.30 Contract 60 LR 46406 Traction Power $ 40,403,178.26 Contract 80 LR 46408 Vehicle Storage Maintenance Facility $ 13,558,377.46 Contract 100 LR 46410 Park & Rides $ 4,353,300.00 Contract 110 LR 46411 Station Finishes $ 4,684,283.33 Contract 120 LR 46412 Light Rail Vehicles $ 36,016,517.76 Contract 08-48116 Fare Vending Equip. $ 1,467,250.00 Contract 150 LR 46415 Demolition $ 1,512,315.00 Contract 07-46527A T4 Asbestos Project Monitoring $ 80,590.36 Contract 160 LR-46416 Construction of Temp Siding Track $ 53,729.90 Contract 180 LR46418 Temporary Shelter Purchase $ 49,697.00 Contract 230 230 Temporary Shelter for LRVS $ 18,650.00 Contract 250 LR 46425 VSMF Direct Current Power Distribution $ 105,035.76 Contract 260 LR-46426 Temporary Spur Track Sewells Point $ 114,883.00 Contract 280 LR 46428 IDIQ Overhead Structures $ 822,682.29 IDIQ Systems Services – Inspection, Contract 340 LR 46434 $ 36,060.00 Maintenance, and Construction

2 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 2 Project Contracts List HRT No. Contract Contract Description Final Contract Values IDIQ Railway Services Maintenance – Light Contract 360 LR 46436 $ 129,233.00 Rail Track Work Contract 1000 1000 Landscaping $ 479,149.00 Contract 2000 2000 Drainage under I-264 $ 835,894.00

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 3 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 3 Project Construction Schedule Dates (year/quarter) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

HRT Contract Title

Contract (Per Payment

No. Applications) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 LR 46401 - HRT 10, Grandy 10 Village Wetlands Mitigation LR 46402 - HRT 20, Harbor Park 20 to NSU Viaduct LR 46404 - HRT 40, 40 Overall Track/Civil Construction 60 LR 46406 - HRT 60, Systems LR 46408 - HRT 80, 80 VSMF (Yard & Shop) 100A LR 46410A - HRT 100A 100A-C1 LR 46410C1 - HRT 100C1 LR 46410B - HRT 100B, 100B Ballentine Boulevard Park & Ride Lot 100C2 LR 46410C-II - HRT 100C-II LR 46410D- Operators 100D Restroom 110 LR 46411 - Station Finishes LR 46415 - HRT 150: 150 Kirn Library Demo LR-46416 - Construction of a 160 Temporary Siding Track LR46418, HRT 180: 180 Shelter Structures, Inc. LR 46425 - HRT 250: Direct 250 Current Power Distribution LR-46426 - HRT 260: 260 Turnout Welding and Insulated Joint Installation 280 - Task LR 46428 - HRT 280: IDIQ Job Order #22 Order Contracting Serv. LR 46434, HRT 340, Inspection, 340 Maintenance and Construction Services LR 46436, HRT 360: 360 Light Rail Track Work

4 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Construction of the Tide lasted over three years and six months. Project construction began with the initial Notice to Proceed (NTP) of Contract 20 on January 14, 2008, and was substantially complete with beginning of revenue service in August 2011, however, some elements of construction continued to May 2012. In early 2008, the need to perform multiple utility relocations and to purchase necessary rights-of-way resulted in many months of delay and the eventual combining of Contracts 30 and 40 into a single Contract 40 (later separated into Contracts 40 and 40A for invoicing purposes). With that combination, over $14.6 million in change orders and over one year in contract delays were recognized in the two contracts. Other delays and change orders compounded in subsequent contracts. The project schedule, with respect to SCC’s, was as follows. Durations shown below extend beyond the beginning of revenue service date to account for final invoice payments.

Table 4 Project Construction Schedule by Standard Cost Code

In general, the construction of the Tide was a challenging process requiring multiple change orders and design revisions. Many of these challenges are discussed in detail in other reports performed by the Commonwealth of Virginia, “Special Review – Hampton Roads Transit – Norfolk Light Rail – Report Number 2010-211” dated December 14, 2010, and the “Final Monitoring Report”, dated October 31, 2012, performed and provided by the Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC).

Concerning the comparison of construction costs to the various other milestone values Pay item costs were tracked per bid item as well as per SCC code to the extent possible during construction. During the course of this review, some notable items have been found to be assigned to an incorrect SCC or subcategory. However, the values represented in this report reflect documentation provided by HRT, and therefore any costs that may have been miscoded during construction have not been revised. Items of note or of a sufficient cost to affect the comparison between SCC values at the various milestones have been identified and described in the sections below. Additionally, the values represented below reflect project costs per SCC and potentially include work performed outside of the Tide project value – tracked by HRT as Concurrent Non-FFGA effort. It is assumed that these variations account for the approximate $1 million variation between the values provided in Table 1 above and the values shown in Tables 5 through 14 below.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 5 The Tide Light Rail Project

Guideway and Track Elements (SCC 10) The Tide consists of approximately 7.3 route-miles of both ballasted and embedded double track. At- Grade Exclusive Right-of-Way costs were primarily performed under project Contracts 40, 60, and 110. Several items, including five traction power substations (TPSS) totaling $9.8 million, were coded as SCC 10.01 in Contract 60. These and other items likely attributable to SCCs 40 and 50 would likely reduce the overall SCC 10 value to approximately $70 million, and increase systems to nearly $40 million. Contract 110 – Station Finishes had over $1.5 million in costs coded to SCC 10.01, consisting mostly of retaining walls, concrete platforms and ramps, signage, and electrical work. These items should likely have been coded to SCC 40.

Several large bridge structures were constructed with the Tide. Aerial structure costs were included in both Contracts 20 and 40.

Table 5 Actual Costs– SCC 10 –Detailed Description Guideway and 10 Track Elements Actual 10.01 At-Grade exclusive ROW $ 28,674,685 10.02 At-Grade semi-exclusive $ 10,643 10.03 At-Grade in mixed traffic $ (12,600) * 10.04 Aerial structure $ 25,570,861 10.05 Built-up Fill $ 123,201 10.06 Underground cut & cover $ - 10.07 Underground tunnel $ - 10.08 Retained cut or fill $ 5,219,571 10.09 Track: direct fixation $ 7,430,559 10.10 Track: embedded $ 9,221,255 10.11 Track: ballasted $ 3,942,933 10.12 Track: Special (switches) $ 2,976,829 10.13 Track: vibration and noise damp. $ 585,212 $ 83,743,148 * Negative value shown for Contract 40A.

The amounts of guideway and track elements were moderately affected during construction. The project limits of the Tide system were shortened by approximately 450 LF near the Eastern Virginia Medical Center (EVMC) Station. The as-built switch location is approximately 600 feet east of the location defined in the FFGA.

The construction schedule for SCC 10 elements extended from Q2 2008 to mid-2012, to beyond the beginning of revenue service date.

Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal (SCC 20) The Tide project includes eleven stations along the alignment, each with a covered platform area and bench seating, ticket vending machines, and ADA facilities. Values represented in Table 6 for the After condition represent primarily the elevator system installed at the Norfolk State University (NSU) Station

6 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

at Brambleton (Contract 20), as well as station site furnishings (Contracts 110). The costs for the sitework, such as curbs, ramps, and other civil elements, were not captured under this SCC; many of these costs are included in SCC 10 (see above).

Table 6 Actual Costs– SCC 20 –Detailed Description Stations, Stops, 20 Terminals, Intermodal Actual 20.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform $ 179,749 20.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform $ 65,620 20.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform $ - 20.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc. $ 70,708 20.05 Joint Development $ - 20.06 Automobile parking multi-story structure $ - 20.07 Elevators, escalators $ 689,738 $ 1,005,816

Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administrative Buildings (SCC 30) The Norfolk Tide Facility (NTF), which includes the yard, maintenance building, and small rail operations center, is located near the NSU Station. The NTF contract was bid in July 2008 and constructed in the summer of 2010. The building was ultimately constructed with a brick façade and “Stinger” system facilitating power for vehicle movement within the building.

Performed mostly under Contract 80, nearly all of the costs attributed to SCC 30 went towards the NTF building itself, in SCC 30.02. It should be noted that SCC 30.02, as a result of the change orders issued, includes approximately $1.26 million in building redesign efforts in addition to the capital costs of the building. These design fees should have been more appropriately applied to SCC 80.

Also included in this value is a facility at Sewell’s Point, which served to temporarily house vehicles during testing and commissioning.

Table 7 Actual Costs – SCC 30 –Detailed Description 30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Terminals Actual 30.01 Admin bldg: Office, sales, storage, revenue counting $42,000 Light Maintenance Facility ("Shops and Equipment" in FY05 New 30.02 $9,826,072 Starts) 30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility $ - 30.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building $49,697 30.05 Yard Trackwork $2,435,809 $12,353,579

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 7 The Tide Light Rail Project

Sitework & Special Conditions (SCC 40) SCC 40 items were included in nearly all of the Tide construction contracts. This category includes a wide variety of work, ranging from general civil construction, demolition, public and private utility relocations and adjustments, to asbestos abatement. Additionally, some item not included in the original FFGA and bid documents were added to the contract after the Operations Hazards Analysis (OHA) review, many of which were included in this category (and performed under Contract 280). Contracts 40 and 40A included $18.5 million, or 33%, of SCC 40 costs.

The largest percentage of work was performed in SCC 40.02 and SCC 40.08, each at approximately 28% of the total SCC 40 cost of $56.2 million. The largest portion of SCC 40.02 was included in Contract 40A, attributable to public utilities such as water, waste water, storm water, and power / street lighting installations. Relocation of a segment of Dominion Virginia Power (DVP) electrical distribution poles are also included in Contract 40A and accounted for here. SCC 40.08 was primarily performed as part of Contract 40 as well, spent on traffic control and temporary construction items, as well as a number of change orders to address delays.

SCC 40.02 and 40.08 also include additional costs incurred for electrical services installed for the TPSS units, signal houses, platforms, traffic and train signals, and other elements requiring a power feed, as these feeds were not covered by the utility franchise agreement. A large DVP duct bank was installed during the project under the franchise agreement and therefore was not paid for by the project, however, the project delays incurred as a result of the late addition of this duct bank adversely impacted the project schedule and cost.

Table 8 Actual Costs – SCC 40 –Detailed Description 40 Sitework and Special Conditions Actual 40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork $7,760,031 40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation $15,515,744 Hazmat, contaminated soil removal/mitigation, ground water 40.03 $876,771 treatments 40.04 Environmental Mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeological, parks $2,122,803 40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls $3,601,689 40.06 Pedestrian/bike access and accommodation, landscaping $5,047,049 40.07 Road/street mods $5,507,043 40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction $15,770,916 $56,202,050

Systems (SCC 50) The Tide project was constructed with a communications and signaling system, including a conduit network, fiber optic communications system, and simple SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) system connecting the vehicles and traction power substations (TPSS) units to the operations control center at the NTF. The signaling system employed on the Tide is an automatic block signaling (ABS) system. This system, and other SCC elements, was installed as part of Contracts 40 and 60. It should be noted that SCC 50.03 – Traction Power, performed under Contracts 40, 60, and 80, does not include the substations themselves; this cost is captured in SCC 10 as previously noted.

8 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Crossing protection and other safety items are also included in this SCC. Responding to the findings of an operational hazards analysis (OHA) performed during construction, fencing, gates, railings, signage, and other barriers were implemented on the project. These elements are captured in SCC’s 40 and 50.

Table 9 Actual Costs – SCC 50 –Detailed Description 50 Systems Actual 50.01 Train Control and signals $9,690,145 50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection $9,712,932 50.03 TPSS $554,389 50.04 OCS $13,923,516 50.05 Communication $642,502 50.06 Fare Collection $ - 50.07 Central Control $ - $34,523,487

ROW, Land, Existing Improvements (SCC 60) The final constructed project includes 157 affected parcels resulting in approximately $16 million in right-of-way (ROW) costs. Purchases of ROW include full and partial acquisitions, various easements, and relocations. Easements and ROW on NSU campus were not acquired prior to the bidding of the Tide project in early 2008, increasing costs during construction and delaying construction through the entire project.

Table 10 Actual Costs – SCC 60 –Detailed Description 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements Actual Purchase or lease of real estate (FY05 New Starts cost estimate 60.01 combined these two line items into "Property Acquisition including $15,157,193 Escl & Relocation") 60.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses $788,307 $15,945,500

Vehicles (SCC 70) HRT acquired nine Siemens S70 low-floor light rail vehicles for the project. Costs associated with vehicle spare parts and system maintenance equipment are included as a subsection of “Start-Up and Pre- Revenue Operations” in final project accounting, under SCC 80.08 – System Start-Up. The value of the “parts and materials” is approximately $1.4 million.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 9 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 11 Actual Costs – SCC 70 –Detailed Description 70 Vehicles Actual 70.01 Light Rail $36,066,517 70.02 Heavy Rail $ - 70.03 Commuter Rail $ - 70.04 Bus $ - 70.05 Other $ - 70.06 Non-revenue vehicles $ - 70.07 Spare parts $ - 70.01 Light Rail $36,066,517

Professional Services (SCC 80) SCC 80 costs were utilized throughout the duration of the Tide project. The largest percentage of work was performed in SCC 80.02, 80.03, and 80.04, which combined account for 68% of the SCC 80 total value.

Table 12 Actual Costs – SCC 80 –Detailed Description 80 Professional Services Actual 80.01 Preliminary Engineering $8,754,000 80.02 Final Design $17,323,163 80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction $21,680,086 80.04 Construction Administration & Management $13,279,442 80.05 Insurance $7,975,637 80.06 Legal, Permits, Review Fees by other agencies/cities $421,318 80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection $ - 80.08 System Start-up $7,374,425 $76,808,071

Unallocated Contingency (SCC 90) There is no Unallocated Contingency accounted for in the constructed After condition. However, it should be noted that most or all of the project construction contracts were bid and awarded with no contingency.

Table 13 Actual Costs – SCC 90 –Detailed Description 90 Unallocated Contingency Actual N/A

10 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Finance Charges (SCC 100) According to the HRT’s final project documentation, $51,987 in finance charges was recognized on the project.

Table 14 Actual Costs – SCC 100 –Detailed Description 100 Finance Charges Actual $ 51,987

Accuracy of Predictions at Project Milestones This section documents the predicted costs at the three pre-construction milestones, and compares the predictions made to the actual outcome of the Tide project.

HRT developed predictions of capital costs at three milestones – Entry into PE, Entry into FD, and the FFGA (see Table 15 below for submitted milestone values). These predictions all occurred at different time periods with varying predictions of project duration and inflation rates. To review the accuracy of these milestone predictions, the raw data of each milestone estimate has been analyzed to independently account for inflation and construction duration as overall construction cost factors. Per information developed and included in the FTA-provided New Starts Application spreadsheet submitted at each milestone, raw cost prediction data for each milestone was taken from the “Main Worksheet – Build Alternative” and “Inflation Worksheet” forms. Additionally, the recognized Actual construction data, including recognized schedule and inflation rates with respect to bid prices, was converted into the same FTA-application format. This data was then used to generate the following tables.

Table 15, below, summarizes the actual capital cost of the project and the predictions at the three milestones. The table presents the costs in two different dollar valuations. First, values in “constant” dollars rely on the value of a dollar in a specific year, effectively assuming that the project is built entirely within that year and ignoring the effects of inflation. Second, values in “year-of-expenditure” (YOE) dollars specifically recognize the schedule for project construction, the annual cost-inflation that erodes the value of the dollar over time, and the real-world cash flow for the project. HRT followed standard practice in the prediction of capital costs for the Tide LRT project, first developing a cost prediction in constant dollars and then inflating that prediction to YOE dollars based on the anticipated project construction schedule and annual rates of construction cost inflation.

Table 15 examines the accuracy of HRT’s predictions of total project cost in both constant and YOE dollars. Table Alpha in the appendix presents the underlying calculations of actual and predicted costs for each year of the project-development schedule.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 11 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 15 Predicted and Actual Total Capital Costs – Constant Year Dollars Predictions Line Entry Entry Cost Measure Actual FFGA No. into PE into FD (2006) (2003) (2006) Constant Dollars (millions) 1 Total capital cost in 2003 constant dollars $242.6 $182.0 ------2 Total capital cost in 2006 constant dollars $281.0 --- $213.6 --- 3 Total capital cost in 2006 constant dollars $288.7 ------$221.3 Inflation Dollar-weighted mid-point of project Jun09 Nov05 Jun08 Jun08 4 expenditures 5 Opening year Aug11 Dec07 Jan10 Jan10 Inflation effects compared to 2003 constant 6 dollars 29.6% 9.0% ------Inflation effects compared to 2006 constant 7 dollars 12.0% --- 10.2% --- Inflation effects compared to 2006 constant 8 dollars 12.0% ------10.1% Year-of-Expenditure (YOE) Dollars (millions) 9 Total capital cost in YOE dollars $314.6 $198.3 $235.3 $232.1 Predicted minus actual total capital cost in 10 YOE dollars --- -$119.6 -$79.3 -$82.5 -- component attributable to scope/unit-cost 11 differences --- -$65.0 -$74.2 -$77.2 -- component attributable to inflation-rate 12 differences --- -$14.2 $3.8 $3.7 -- component attributable to schedule 13 differences --- -$40.5 -$8.8 -$9.0

Line 1 of Table 15 shows that HRT predicted a constant-2003-dollar project cost $182.0 million at Entry into PE in 2003. Line 1 also presents the actual cost of the project, translated from YOE dollars into constant 2003 dollars. Comparison of the predicted and actual cost indicates that the HRT prediction was not accurate – an underestimate of $65 million. Similarly, Line 2 compares the predicted constant- 2006-dollar project cost at the 2006 Final Design milestone to the actual project cost translated into constant 2006 dollars, followed by the 2006 constant-dollar comparison for the FFGA provided in Line 3 (note that the FFGA, while dated 2007, was calculated with 2006 dollar values). Again, the HRT prediction was not accurate by similar margins – underestimating the constant-year project cost by $74.2 and $77.2 million, respectively. Overall, HRT was consistent in the underestimation of project capital costs by nearly one-quarter the total value at all three pre-construction milestones in terms of total project cost in constant-dollars.

Lines 4 and 5 describe actual and predicted conditions related to inflation effects on the Tide LRT project costs. Line 4 presents the mid-points of expenditures on the project computed from the actual and predicted schedules of annual expenditures. Line 5 documents the actual and predicted date of project

12 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

opening. At Entry into PE in 2003, HRT anticipated a project schedule with a mid-point in November 2005 and project opening in 2007. At Entry into FD in 2006, these schedule predictions were revised to a construction mid-point in June of 2008 and project opening on January 1, 2010. These predictions were also used in the FFGA in 2007. As described later in this memorandum, the actual project construction duration was extended well beyond the original project schedules envisioned in the pre- construction milestones.

Lines 6, 7, and 8 summarize the actual and predicted impacts of construction-cost inflation on project costs. At Entry into PE on Line 6, HRT predicted that inflation would add 9.0% to the 2006 constant- dollar cost estimate based on the anticipated project schedule. The Entry into PE milestone was not developed in the now-standard FTA format utilizing SCC categories. As such, inflation was assumed to be at an annual rate of 3%, applied to the midpoint of construction of various project items. The actual impact of inflation on the constant-dollar cost estimate was 29.6%, well above the 9.0% prediction.

At Entry into FD (Line 7) and FFGA (Line 8), HRT utilized the FTA SCC format in development of the cost estimate. The Entry into FD prediction assumed inflation would hold steady at a rate of 3.875% per year, resulting in an overall percentage increase of 10.2% for the duration of the construction contract. This prediction proved mostly true, as the actual recognized inflation increased the project costs by 12.0% to the 2006 constant-dollar cost estimate. The FFGA milestone, also in 2006 dollars, also predicted inflation at 12%, based on revised construction schedule and the assumption of nationwide values for Engineering News Record construction costs. This prediction proved inaccurate as the actual recognized inflation encountered for this milestone was 10.1%.

The actual effect of inflation on the constant-dollar cost estimates appears to have been noticeable for the Tide LRT project. The actual 29.6% increase from the Entry into PE estimate was particularly significant. None of the predicted amounts were greater than those experienced in the Actual column. There could be several causes of the underestimates of inflation effects, including the three different calculations of rates in the three milestones. Table B summarizes the annual increase in construction costs as measured by the Engineering News Records national-average index of construction costs. For 2003 through 2006, the index rose by a total 15.8% (6694 in 2003 to 7751 in 2006), an average increase of 4.4% per year. This pace far outstripped the 3% per year assumption made at Entry into PE. Similarly, the “great recession” that began in 2007 cooled national and international demand for construction materials and labor, reducing inflation rates in 2007, 2009, and 2010. This provided for much more accurate predictions to prevail in the Entry into FD estimate and the FFGA with respect to inflation.

Lines 9 through 13 show the causes of differences between the predicted and actual costs in YOE dollars. Line 9 reflects the predicted total costs at the various years of expenditure. Line 10 provides the total amount difference between actual expenditures and the predicted, inflated amounts. Lines 11, 12, and 13 distribute the overall difference in costs according to unit cost / scope, inflation, and schedule. This is accomplished by a series of calculations: Line 11 compares the construction unit cost distribution against the three milestones in their constant year dollar value per SCC, Line 12 compares inflation by quantifying the difference in values when the different inflation predictions are applied, and Line 13 accounts for the effects of inflation on the project when comparing the predicted years of construction to the actual years of construction.

At Entry into PE, even with the poor prediction of inflation, the most significant impact resulted from the scope / unit cost differences and the schedule impacts. Predictions of underlying scope and unit-cost

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 13 The Tide Light Rail Project

differences contributed a significant overrun to the project. The anticipated construction schedule contributed an impact as well, demonstrating the impacts of a prolonged construction schedule on the capital costs. At Entry into FD and FFGA milestones, by far the largest impact resulted from scope and unit-cost differences, further reflecting inaccurate predictions of the scope and need of the project.

Table 16 Actual Changes in Construction Costs Year Index* Effective Rate Year Index* Effective Rate 2000 6221 --- 2008 8310 4.3% 2001 6343 2.0% 2009 8570 3.1% 2002 6538 3.1% 2010 8802 2.7% 2003 6694 2.4% 2011 9080 3.2% 2004 7115 6.3% 2012 9308 2.5% 2005 7446 4.7% 2013 9547 2.6% 2006 7751 4.1% 2014 9821 2.9% 2007 7966 2.8% 2015 10086 2.7% Source: Engineering News Record – National Construction Cost Index History, Annual Averages.

Table 17 examines the accuracy of predicted costs for individual components of the project grouped into FTA’s Standard Cost Categories (SCCs). All predicted costs in the table are in constant 2006 dollars to remove inflation effects from any differences between the predicted and actual costs. Consequently, the causes of any cost differences are limited to differences in project scope and/or differences in the base-year unit costs at each milestone. The table flags a significant difference between the predicted and actual cost of an SCC when the absolute difference exceeds ±$10 million and the relative difference exceeds ±20%).

14 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 17 Actual and Predicted Expenditures Converted to FFGA-Year (2006) Dollars Actual Predictions and Differences from Actual Costs cost Entry into PE Entry into FD FFGA Original dollar year of the 2006 actual or predicted costs 2003 2006 2007 (2006 dollars)

) ) ) ) ) ) ) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 lute Standard Cost Category 0 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $20 Relative Relative Relative Absolute Absolute Abso (percent) (percent) (percent) Difference Difference Difference Difference Difference Difference (millions of of (millions of (millions of (millions of (millions of (millions of (millions (millions of of (millions Actual Costs Actual Predicted Costs Predicted Costs Predicted Costs Predicted 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS $75.8 $56.7 -$19.1 -25% $52.0 -$23.9 -31% $52.0 -$23.9 -31% 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL $0.9 $9.1 $8.2 886% $5.2 $4.3 466% $5.2 $4.3 466% 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. $11.3 $12.7 $1.3 12% $15.4 $4.1 36% $15.4 $4.1 36% 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS $50.9 $23.2 -$27.7 -54% $12.5 -$38.4 -75% $12.5 -$38.4 -75% 50 SYSTEMS $30.7 $27.6 -$3.1 -10% $25.6 -$5.1 -17% $25.6 -$5.1 -17% 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS $14.5 $11.3 -$3.1 -22% $10.5 -$4.0 -28% $10.5 -$4.0 -28% 70 VEHICLES $32.7 $31.7 -$1.0 -3% $36.8 $4.0 12% $33.4 $0.7 2% 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $71.8 $38.6 -$33.1 -46% $40.8 -$31.0 -43% $40.8 -$31.0 -43% 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 0% $10.0 $10.0 0% $10.0 $10.0 0% 100 FINANCE CHARGES $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 -100% $4.9 $4.8 9698% $4.9 $4.8 9698% Total $288.7 $210.9 -$77.8 -27% $213.6 -$75.2 -26% $210.2 -$78.5 -27%

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 15 The Tide Light Rail Project

This table highlights many differences, including several massively large percentage differences for lines with little or no actual cost identified (SCC’s 20 and 100). However, the most significant differences are shown in the three largest SCC’s – SCC 10, SCC 40, and SCC 80. These three SCC values most clearly represent the large variations in project scope as well as significantly missed financial predictions. All three of these categories appear to have been underestimated due to unit cost or scope challenges rather than inflation or schedule. While project schedule was a significant issue during construction, as discussed elsewhere in this memorandum, it does not appear to have been the primary reason for the recognized costs.

Two notable overestimates in predicted costs are reflected in SCC’s 20 and 30. Due to unintentional documentation and categorization errors during construction (such as concrete site work for station platforms being attributed to SCC 40 instead of SCC 20), the costs coded to these SCC’s are lower than expended on the items themselves, therefore the actual difference may not be as significant as shown here for these two SCC’s. This situation is discussed in further detail in the FFGA section in this document.

Table A demonstrates that the three milestones were all consistently between 23% and 25% lower than the recognized actual costs in constant year dollars (accounting for inflation). Table C confirms those findings in showing that, when reviewed in 2006 constant year dollars, the Relative Differences of the total costs are 21%, 24%, and 25% under actual value, respectively. These values are used as a point of reference throughout the remainder of the memorandum when discussing and comparing SCC subcategory values.

Capital Cost Estimates at Project Milestones The predicted total construction costs for the Tide were relatively consistent through the Preliminary Engineering (PE), Final Design (FD), and FFGA conditions. For these milestones, the scope of the project remained steady, consisting of approximately 7.3 miles of ballasted and embedded double track, with an estimated need of 9 vehicles and 11 stations. The constructed project closely resembled those designs; however, costs significantly exceeded expectations. Table 18 provides the actual and predicted project costs organized by SCC according to the original source documents. Values shown below represent YOE costs, including allocated contingency.

Table 18 Actual Cost Comparison to Milestone Cost Estimates by FTA Standard Cost Category Entry into Entry into Actual Preliminary FFGA Final Design Engineering (Before) (FD) (PE) Date of Cost Estimate 2011 8/1/2003 6/29/2006 10/1/2007 Opening Date (planned or actual) August 2011 2008 2010 2010 Estimate in Estimate Year Dollars $182,681,000* $213,583,000 $221,325,000 Estimate in Year of Expenditure $ $315,755,511 $198,491,000 $235,318,000 $232,100,000 Difference from Actual Costs (%) - -37% -25% -26% GUIDEWAY & TRACK 10 $83.3 $53.5 $57.2 $56.1 ELEMENTS

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 16 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 18 Actual Cost Comparison to Milestone Cost Estimates by FTA Standard Cost Category Entry into Entry into Actual Preliminary FFGA Final Design Engineering (Before) (FD) (PE) STATIONS, STOPS, 20 $1.0 $8.7 $5.7 $5.7 TERMINALS, INTERMODAL SUPPORT FACILITIES: 30 YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. $12.3 $12.1 $17.0 $17.6 BLDGS SITEWORK & SPECIAL 40 $55.9 $21.9 $14.4 $16.7 CONDITIONS 50 SYSTEMS $34.4 $26.6 $29.3 $32.5 ROW, LAND, EXISTING 60 $15.9 $10.5 $10.5 $10.7 IMPROVEMENTS 70 VEHICLES $36.1 $29.7 $41.9 $36.0 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $76.8 $35.5 $42.4 $42.1 UNALLOCATED 90 $ - $ - $11.3 $10.8 CONTINGENCY 100 FINANCE CHARGES $ 0.05 $ - $5.6 $3.9 Total Project Cost $315.8 $198.5 $235.3 $232.1 * Estimated value. Original Entry into PE estimate predated standard SCC codes. Values for SCC Categories in millions. Sources: Actual: HRT Accounting Documentation “Categorization of Project Costs FFGA & Concurrent Non-FFGA”, and separation of SCC code values indicated on the final contract payment applications. Entry - PE: Supplemental to October 2002 Capital Cost Results Report, dated August 1, 2003, used to support the FY 2005 New Starts Submittal Dated August 2003. Entry - FD: Updated Request to Enter Final Design, FY 2008 New Starts Submittal, dated June 29, 2006. FFGA: Full Funding Grant Agreement – Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads – Norfolk Light Rail Project – VA-03-0107, dated October 1, 2007.

Capital Costs at Entry into Preliminary Engineering The initial project cost estimate provided in the “Capital Cost Results Report” dated November 2001, was established during the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) process. As discussed in the “Chronology of Capital Costs Estimates for Norfolk LRT Project”, dated February 2005, and through two value engineering processes performed between 2001 and 2003, HRT refined the project to a state similar in scope to the As-Built condition. In November 2001, the original project estimate was $360 million. Though later reduced in length, this initial project design was 7.9-miles and envisioned to follow the same corridor as was ultimately constructed.

Through an FTA meeting in Norfolk with representatives from HRT, the City of Norfolk, and FTA, the project team explored potential capital cost reductions to lower the project Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) to an acceptable level. HRT and the City proposed many adjustments that resulted in a project cost of $278.5 million, a revised financial plan, supplemental information on land use development and

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 17 The Tide Light Rail Project

downtown parking supply constraints, and a revised ridership forecasting methodology. Changes notably included: • use of single-car platforms (with capacity for future expansion) in place of two-car platforms, • eliminating the purchase of two significant properties (the City-owned library parcel and Barry Robinson properties, removed from the project with the reduction in project length), and • a reduction of soft costs (contingency, escalation, and engineering efforts). A second capital cost reduction workshop was held in Norfolk in August 2002. The project team was directed by FTA to identify further reductions through value engineering efforts. A panel of HRT staff, the Program Management Consultant, FTA engineering representatives, and other engineering experts was convened to address a re-definition of the Baseline Alternative, accounting for new ridership predictions and an increase in project CEI. This workshop generated recommendations to reduce the project cost. These recommendations, later implemented into the design, included some key project elements: • alternative bridge configurations and structure types, • prefabricated station shelter structures, • deferring of the automated train control (ATC) systems and operating under line-of-sight rules, • deferring communications, SCADA, public address, and other systems, and operating the system with radios, supplemented with a GPS-based automatic vehicle location (AVL) system, • smaller traction power units, and • a simplified vehicle maintenance facility, including deferral of the control center.

The result of this second effort was a 7.4-mile system with a capital cost estimate of $221.9 million, completed in October 2002. By August 2003, and through further reductions to traction power systems and utility relocation efforts, revisions to structural designs, and the elimination of a light rail vehicle, this estimate was reduced to the $198.5 million estimate examined in this memorandum. This original estimate, used as the Entry into PE, predated and therefore did not utilize FTA’s SCC’s in breaking down the project costs. This initial milestone assumed revenue service to begin in 2008.

For the purposes of this study, the values provided in the original Entry into PE documentation have been converted into the SCC format to the extent possible. Table 15 provides the estimates at each milestone (Entry into PE, Entry into Final Design, and the FFGA) in YOE dollars, and the actual or as-built construction costs.

The tables in this section reflect YOE dollars as documented on the New Starts application spreadsheets submitted to FTA for the various milestones, compared to actual costs. When necessary, findings of note are also discussed with respect to 2006 constant year dollars, as shown in Tables A and C. Since inflation and other values have not be developed specifically for sub-categories of the SCC’s, the overall 2006 constant dollar value for the SCC’s was applied to all of the individual sub-categories. This data is referenced as needed for items of note, in an effort to not over- or understate the importance of the difference in predicted versus actual values for individual SCC sub-categories.

The initial schedule developed for the project predicted construction to occur primarily in 2006 and 2007, with revenue operations beginning in 2007. This time frame was later adjusted with subsequent New Starts submittals. The notable variation between this prediction and the constructed project was primarily the duration of construction, and how predicted construction duration of between two and three years ultimately was extended to nearly four years.

18 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 19 Project Entry into PE Schedule compared to Actual Construction Schedule:

Guideway and Track Elements (SCC 10) Table 20 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 10 Details Guideway and Entry Into 10 Track Elements Actual PE Entry into FD FFGA 10.01 At-Grade exclusive ROW $ 28,674,685 $ 10,929,459 $ 4,664,000 $ 5,276,000 10.02 At-Grade semi-exclusive $ 10,643 $ - $ 5,846,000 $ 6,893,000 10.03 At-Grade in mixed traffic $ (12,600) $ - $ - $ - 10.04 Aerial structure $ 25,570,861 $ 27,851,545 $ 18,235,000 $ 16,339,000 10.05 Built-up Fill $ 123,201 $ - $ - $ - 10.06 Underground cut & cover $ - $ - $ - $ - 10.07 Underground tunnel $ - $ - $ - $ - 10.08 Retained cut or fill $ 5,219,571 $ - $ 8,101,000 $ 7,678,000 10.09 Track: direct fixation $ 7,430,559 $ 1,179,227 $ 2,521,000 $ 3,052,000 10.10 Track: embedded $ 9,221,255 $ 2,499,330 $ 5,644,000 $ 5,270,000 10.11 Track: ballasted $ 3,942,933 $ 8,932,044 $ 10,803,000 $ 10,087,000 10.12 Track: Special (switches) $ 2,976,829 $ 2,095,400 $ 1,398,000 $ 1,501,000 Track: vibration and noise 10.13 $ 585,212 $ - $ - $ - damp. $ 83,743,148 $ 53,487,005 $ 57,211,000 $ 56,096,000 SCC 10 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $75.8 M $56.7 M $52.0 M $52.0 M

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 19 The Tide Light Rail Project

The project limits of the Tide system remained relatively consistent throughout the project milestones, having approximately 7.3 miles of ballasted and embedded double track corridor. The Entry into PE milestone had the earliest year of revenue service identified (2008) and consequently the largest variation with respect to project schedule as shown in Table 15. Predictions for inflation and unit costs were also significant.

Per the Capital Cost Report for this milestone, the SCC 10 value includes approximately 7,000 route feet of Embedded Track, 23,450 route feet of Ballasted Track (either with open track bed or adjacent to a roadway), and 15 at-grade roadway crossings totaling over 1400 feet – values similar to those in the After condition. Despite the relative consistency in the scope, SCC 10 contains several subcategories that were significantly underestimated at the Entry into PE milestone, apparently due to unit cost predictions. In attempting to quantify these differences, some inference can be made based on unit prices of some key items.

Originally developed in metric measurements, Entry into PE unit prices have been converted into English units, and escalated to account for inflation at the construction year of the PE design (typically 10.910%) and to include 15% contingency per the same methodology used to originally generate the FY 2005 New Starts Submission. Direct Fixation track, Open Deck Aerial Structure, and several other potential key indicator items were not compared since they were typically paid for as large lump sum items as part of Contract 40A. Also, the 2002 Capital Cost Results Report includes several different values for ballasted and embedded track for various locations and scenarios. The highest value of these numbers was used, the results of which are shown in Table 21.

Table 21 Actual Cost Comparison to Entry into PE – SCC 10 – Key Indicators Actual Entry Into PE Unit Price Converted Escalated % Bid Item Unit Price Unit Price Change Mainline Ballasted $450 / Track Foot $907 / Rt. Meter $138.26 / TF $176.35 / TF 255% Track Mainline $470 / TF $917 / RM $139.75 / TF $178.25 / TF 264% Embedded Track Special Trackwork – $318,866 / $200,000 / Each $250,000 / Each -63% Ballasted Turnout EA Sources: Actual: HRT Accounting Documentation – Contract 40 – Final Payment Application – March 29, 2012. Entry - PE: Supplemental to October 2002 Capital Cost Results Report, dated August 1, 2003, used to support the FY 2005 New Starts Submittal Dated August 2003.

An attempt at comparing SCC 10.04 – Aerial Structure estimates was made (due to the large costs in the subcategory) using the Entry Into PE price of $9,193 per route meter of track, or $2,802 per linear foot of bridge. The 3000-foot long Lamberts/Brambleton Viaduct structure was constructed as part of Contract 20 and paid for as a $7.395 million lump sum cost. This value equates to approximately $2,459 per linear foot of structure. The After cost should be inflated relative to the Entry into PE cost to account for several smaller items broken out separately and potentially applied to other SCC codes. This approach would likely result in similar values and a relatively accurate unit price prediction for aerial guideway costs.

20 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences The above section demonstrates that unit price assumptions for certain SCC 10 items were a factor in the inaccuracy of this predictions at the Entry into PE milestone. Only the “Aerial structure” and “Track: Ballasted” sections were overestimated, while the “Track: direct fixation” and “At-Grade exclusive ROW” were significantly underestimated. All other sub-categories were underestimated, with the exception of Track: Special. When reviewed in 2006 constant year dollars, that sub-category was well predicted.

While the predictions from Entry into PE were not accurate, some items were also misclassified in the After condition. Some costs likely attributable to other SCC’s are thought to be included in the After SCC 10.01 (see SCC 20 of the After Condition).

Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal (SCC 20) The Tide project includes eleven stations along the alignment in both the After and Entry into PE milestones. Originally envisioned with single car platforms, a two-car platform was ultimately constructed at the NSU station. The costs for the site work were not captured under this SCC in the After condition; many of these costs are included in SCC 10, contributing to the large discrepancies shown in Table 22. It is believed that more of these miscoded costs were assigned to SCC 40.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences: The Entry Into PE milestone assigns all station construction values to SCC 20.01 and 20.02, while the After condition distributes its costs over four subcategories. The total SCC 20 value of the constructed project was just over $1 million. When translated into 2006 constant year dollars, the constructed SCC 20 is less than 10% of the $9.1 million predicted at Entry into PE. Values represented in Table 22 for the After condition represent primarily the elevator system installed at the Norfolk State University (NSU) station at Brambleton Station (Contract 20), as well as station site furnishings (Contracts 110). With many site / civil items wrapped into Lump Sum items, actual costs for specific station elements are not easily discerned in the After estimate and likely are miscoded to SCC 40 subcategories, with some charges potentially attributed to SCC 10 as well. Costs predicted during the Entry into PE milestones included nearly all of the elements of construction to be recognized during station installation, including concrete site work and nearby park-and-ride facilities.

An initial assumption made in the Entry into PE prediction that proved inaccurate was the nature of the stop shelters. Originally envisioned as a prefabricated shelter, the designs were revised to a unique shelter structure during construction at the request and direction of the City of Norfolk. This change does not result in significant cost variations due to the miscoding issues discussed above; however, it is a source of discrepancy.

Table 22 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 20 Details Stations, Stops, Entry Into Entry into 20 Terminals, Intermodal Actual PE FD FFGA At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform (FY05 20.01 New Starts cost estimate $ 179,749 $ 7,668,404 $ 4,219,000 $ 4,285,000 combined stations and park- and-rides)

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 21 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 22 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 20 Details Stations, Stops, Entry Into Entry into 20 Terminals, Intermodal Actual PE FD FFGA Aerial station, stop, shelter, 20.02 $ 65,620 $ 1,019,228 $ 1,250,000 $ 1,188,000 mall, terminal, platform Underground station, stop, 20.03 shelter, mall, terminal, $ - $ - $ - $ - platform Other stations, landings, 20.04 terminals: Intermodal, ferry, $ 70,708 $ - $ - $ - trolley, etc. 20.05 Joint Development $ - $ - $ - $ - Automobile parking multi- 20.06 $ - $ - $ - $ - story structure 20.07 Elevators, escalators $ 689,738 $ - $ 187,000 $ 198,000 $ 1,005,816 $8,687,632 $ 5,657,000 $ 5,671,000 SCC 20 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $0.9 M $9.1 M $5.2 M $5.2 M

Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administrative Buildings (SCC 30) The Tide project included over $12 million in SCC 30 project costs, of which the vast majority was spent on the maintenance facility itself. Included primarily in Contract 80, the structure included a brick façade, full building redesign, and associated soft costs during construction.

The predicted condition shown in the Entry into PE figures appears to represent a relatively accurate prediction of SCC 30 costs, even with addition of the brick façade. However, it should be noted that two other items confuse this prediction. When compared in 2006 constant year dollars, the Actual cost becomes $11.3 million, while the Entry into PE value increases to $12.7 million. Secondly, the shop traction power substation was included in the original Entry into PE estimate but not coded to the Actual SCC 30 during construction. These factors, combined with the building redesign and associated schedule delays, confuse how accurate a prediction was presented at the Entry into PE milestone.

Table 23 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 30 Details Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Entry Into Entry into 30 Terminals Actual PE FD FFGA Admin bldg: Office, sales, storage, 30.01 $42,000 $ - $ - $ - revenue counting Light Maintenance Facility ("Shops 30.02 and Equipment" in FY05 New $9,826,072 $9,641,256 $8,270,000 $9,240,000 Starts) 30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility $ - $ - $ - $ - Storage or Maintenance of Way 30.04 $49,697 $ - $ - $ - Building

22 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 23 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 30 Details Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Entry Into Entry into 30 Terminals Actual PE FD FFGA 30.05 Yard Trackwork $2,435,809 $2,499,080 $8,721,000 $8,380,000 $12,353,579 $12,140,336 $16,991,000 $17,620,000 SCC 30 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $11.3 M $12.7 M $15.4 M $15.4 M

Sitework & Special Conditions (SCC 40) In 2006 constant year dollars, the actual cost of SCC 40 was more than twice the prediction made at the Entry into PE milestone. The predictions made at the Entry into PE did have relatively accurate predictions for subcategories SCC 40.02 and 40.04, and when accounting for 2006 constant year dollars, SCC 40.07 was also closely predicted, but all of the other Entry into PE values vastly underestimated the Actual costs incurred with project demolition, site structures, and temporary facilities. Demolition costs with respect to the Kirn Library and other buildings exceeded the predictions of the Entry into PE milestone. For the constructed condition, SCC 40.05 costs were recognized primarily in Contract 40 (over $12 million), but also were seen in nearly all of the other construction contracts. These costs were predicted at just over $2 million in the Entry into PE milestone.

The Entry into PE milestone included approximately $1.3 million for the relocation of the Dominion Virginia Power overhead lines. The overhead power relocation is estimated to have ultimately cost over $4 million in the After condition.

Table 24 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 40 Details Entry Into Entry into 40 Sitework and Special Conditions Actual PE FD FFGA Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork 40.01 (includes "Yard Sitework" from $7,760,031 $2,027,802 $703,000 $662,000 FY05 New Starts) 40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation $15,515,744 $14,329,839 $7,340,000 $7,579,000 Hazmat, contaminated soil 40.03 removal/mitigation, ground $876,771 $ - $1,540,000 $1,523,000 water treatments Environmental Mitigation, e.g. 40.04 wetlands, historic/archeological, $2,122,803 $1,477,554 $514,000 $547,000 parks Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls 40.05 $3,601,689 $315,079 $ - $ - (Extension of pedestrian bridge near yard??) Pedestrian/bike access and 40.06 $5,047,049 $ - $382,000 $248,000 accommodation, landscaping 40.07 Road/street mods $5,507,043 $3,757,296 $3,987,000 $6,111,000 40.08 Temporary Facilities and other $15,770,916 $ - $ - $ -

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 23 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 24 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 40 Details Entry Into Entry into 40 Sitework and Special Conditions Actual PE FD FFGA indirect costs during construction $56,202,050 $21,907,569 $14,466,000 $16,670,000 SCC 40 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $50.9 M $23.2 M $12.5 M $12.5 M

Systems (SCC 50) The signaling and communications design envisioned at the Entry into PE milestone is vastly different than what was constructed, due in large part to a project audit performed by the State of Virginia. That audit, discussed in more detail in the FFGA – SCC 50 section of this document, resulted in the addition and construction of more robust signal and communications systems. At Entry into PE, the communications and train signaling systems were predicted to be rudimentary, using line-of-sight operations. Public address and closed circuit television (CCTV) systems at stations, fiber optic lines, and a SCADA system for TPSS units were also absent in the Entry into PE design. TPSS units were designed at a reduced in capacity; 750 kilowatt units were utilized in place of the constructed 1 megawatt TPSS’s. One TPSS unit, eliminated from the design during the PE phase, was added back to the project during construction. The majority of these value engineering decisions made prior to Entry into PE and largely upheld in the other pre-construction milestones, were revised during construction and recognized in the Actual construction costs.

It should be noted that SCC 50.04 – OCS was predicted with relative accuracy. SCC 50.06 – Fare Collection for the After condition is reflected in the vehicle costs in SCC 70, and therefore is not compared in the SCC 50 discussion.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences This SCC was not accurately predicted by the Entry into PE assumptions. The largest variations are reflected in values for SCC’s 50.01 and 50.02.

In SCC 50.03, the Entry into PE milestone estimated approximately $5 million, while the Actual cost for this SCC subcategory is about $500,000. During construction, several TPSS units costing approximately $9 million were coded to SCC 10.01 in Contract 60 (described in the After condition discussion). What is represented in Table 25 reflects a large underestimation of SC 50.03 made at the Entry into PE milestone, as well as a significant miscoding and underrepresentation of SCC 50 Actual construction costs.

Table 25 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 50 Details Entry Into Entry into 50 Systems Actual PE FD FFGA 50.01 Train Control and signals $9,690,145 $3,448,620 $2,560,000 $2,484,000 Traffic signals and 50.02 $9,712,932 $4,076,269 $4,125,000 $4,870,000 crossing protection

24 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 25 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 50 Details Entry Into Entry into 50 Systems Actual PE FD FFGA $ 50.03 TPSS $554,389 $4,717,712 $7,470,000 10,027,000 50.04 OCS $13,923,516 $11,584,604 $12,751,000 $13,044,000 50.05 Communication $642,502 $536,606 $550,000 $524,000 50.06 Fare Collection $ - $2,216,713 $1,825,000 $1,553,000 50.07 Central Control $ - $ - $ - $ - $34,523,487 $26,580,523 $29,281,000 $32,502,000 SCC 50 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $30.7 M $27.6 M $25.6 M $25.6 M

ROW, Land, Existing Improvements (SCC 60) The estimate for SCC 60 costs developed at Entry into PE was based mostly on predicted impacts at station locations and lump sum average percentage estimates. These predictions appear to be inaccurate but relatively close to the Actual costs incurred by the project for the parcels encountered. The Entry into PE prediction appears to have failed to account for the dozens of easements, acquisitions, and relocations required for track and utilities. These issues were addressed during construction.

Table 26 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 60 Details ROW, Land, Existing 60 Improvements Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA Purchase or lease of real estate (FY05 New Starts cost estimate combined 60.01 these two line items into $15,157,193 $10,461,000 $10,305,000 $10,406,000 "Property Acquisition including Escl & Relocation") Relocation of existing 60.02 $788,307 $ - $221,000 $308,000 households and businesses $15,945,500 $10,461,000 $10,526,000 $10,714,000 SCC 60 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $14.5 M $11.3 M $10.5 M $10.5 M

Vehicles (SCC 70) Nine vehicles were assumed through all phases of the Tide project. HRT acquired nine Siemens S70 low- floor light rail vehicles for the project. The Entry into PE estimate predicted that these vehicles could be procured through piggybacking on another order, thus reducing the overall vehicle costs. Purchased under the Charlotte Light Rail Vehicle order, the vehicles were ultimately procured at a competitive price. The original Entry into PE prediction for SCC 70.01 was low; however, when converted into 2006 constant year dollars, the estimate appears to be fairly accurate.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 25 The Tide Light Rail Project

It should be noted that the original Entry into PE prediction included the acquisition of over $3 million in busses. This cost was not recognized in the constructed project.

Table 27 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 70 Details 70 Vehicles Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA 70.01 Light Rail $36,066,517 $26,557,373 $38,039,000 $36,015,000 70.02 Heavy Rail $ - $ - $ - $ - 70.03 Commuter Rail $ - $ - $ - $ - 70.04 Bus $ - $3,141,600 $3,825,000 $ - 70.05 Other $ - $ - $ - $ - 70.06 Non-revenue vehicles $ - $ - $ - $ - 70.07 Spare parts $ - $ - $ - $ - $36,066,517 $29,698,973 $41,864,000 $36,015,000 SCC 70 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $32.7 M $31.7 M $36.8 M $33.4 M

Professional Services (SCC 80) SCC 80 costs were utilized throughout the duration of the Tide project. As is shown in Table 28, the Entry into PE predictions was significantly lower than the costs actually incurred during project design and construction in nearly every subcategory. SCC’s 80.01 and 80.02 combined proved to be twice the predicted design amount; SCC 80.04 was nearly double the original prediction. When accounting for 2006 constant year dollars, these under-predictions change to 60% of the Actual costs for these SCC’s.

The value of SCC 80.04 is likely due in part to the extended duration of construction and continued cost of professional services. Design changes continued throughout the protracted construction schedule, incurring costs for engineering, construction administration, and project management and oversight. Regardless, the Entry into PE underestimated Actual efforts by 40%.

Table 28 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 80 Details 80 Professional Services Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA 80.01 Preliminary Engineering $8,754,000 $ - $8,045,000 $9,032,000 80.02 Final Design $17,323,163 $9,282,435 $8,819,000 $7,738,000 Project Management for 80.03 $21,680,086 $ - $5,951,000 $5,881,000 Design and Construction Construction 80.04 Administration & $13,279,442 $17,626,598 $11,014,000 $10,524,000 Management 80.05 Insurance $7,975,637 $5,222,827 $5,309,000 $5,745,000 Legal, Permits, Review 80.06 Fees by other $421,318 $1,393,403 $1,155,000 $1,135,000 agencies/cities Surveys, Testing, 80.07 $ - $ - $2,075,000 $ - Investigation, Inspection

26 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 28 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 80 Details 80 Professional Services Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA 80.08 System Start-up $7,374,425 $2,000,000 $ - $2,064,000 $76,808,071 $35,525,263 $42,368,000 $42,119,000 SCC 80 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $71.8 M $38.6 M $40.8 M $40.8 M

Unallocated Contingency (SCC 90) SCC 90 – Unallocated Contingency was not utilized in either the Entry into PE or the After milestone.

Table 29 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 90 Details 90 Unallocated Contingency Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA $ - $ - $11,341,000 $10,757,000 SCC 90 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $0.0 M $0.0 M $10.0 M $10.0 M

Finance Charges (SCC 100) SCC 100 – Finance Charges was not utilized in either the Entry into PE or the After milestone.

Table 30 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 100 Details 100 Finance Charges Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA $ 51,987 $ - $5,612,000 $3,938,000 SCC 100 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $0.0 M $0.0 M $4.9 M $4.9 M

Capital Costs at Entry into Final Design In 2006, an estimate at $235,317,000 was approved by FTA, allowing the project to enter Final Design (FD). The New Starts Submission for Fiscal Year 2008, shown here as the Entry into FD milestone, still predicted the Tide project to be 7.4 miles long with 11 stations, with start of revenue service (year of operations) assumed to be 2010. Developed in the current FTA format, the Entry into Final Design estimate was established in SCC codes.

The schedule developed for the Entry into FD milestone shifted the predicted construction duration to occur between beginning of 2007 and end of 2009. Compared to the prediction made at Entry into PE,

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 27 The Tide Light Rail Project

this estimation more closely represented the actual construction duration of four years. The prediction of opening service in 2009 proved inaccurate compared to actual revenue service beginning in 2011.

Table 31 Project Entry into FD Schedule compared to Actual Construction Schedule

Guideway and Track Elements (SCC 10) The project limits of the Tide system remained relatively consistent with the previous milestone, having approximately 7.4 miles of ballasted and embedded double track corridor. Predicted costs from Entry into FD remained consistent with those shown in the Entry into PE milestone, but distributed to more subcategories. When accounting for 2006 constant year dollars, Entry into FD values totaled nearly $5 million less than the previous milestone.

Table 32 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 10 Details Guideway and 10 Track Elements Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA At-Grade exclusive 10.01 $ 28,674,685 $ 10,929,459 $ 4,664,000 $ 5,276,000 ROW At-Grade semi- 10.02 $ 10,643 $ - $ 5,846,000 $ 6,893,000 exclusive At-Grade in mixed 10.03 $ (12,600) $ - $ - $ - traffic 10.04 Aerial structure $ 25,570,861 $ 27,851,545 $ 18,235,000 $ 16,339,000 10.05 Built-up Fill $ 123,201 $ - $ - $ - Underground cut & 10.06 $ - $ - $ - $ - cover

28 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 32 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 10 Details Guideway and 10 Track Elements Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA 10.07 Underground tunnel $ - $ - $ - $ - 10.08 Retained cut or fill $ 5,219,571 $ - $ 8,101,000 $ 7,678,000 10.09 Track: direct fixation $ 7,430,559 $ 1,179,227 $ 2,521,000 $ 3,052,000 10.10 Track: embedded $ 9,221,255 $ 2,499,330 $ 5,644,000 $ 5,270,000 10.11 Track: ballasted $ 3,942,933 $ 8,932,044 $ 10,803,000 $ 10,087,000 Track: Special 10.12 $ 2,976,829 $ 2,095,400 $ 1,398,000 $ 1,501,000 (switches) Track: vibration and 10.13 $ 585,212 $ - $ - $ - noise damp. $ 83,743,148 $ 53,487,005 $ 57,211,000 $ 56,096,000 SCC 10 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $75.8 M $56.7 M $52.0 M $52.0 M

Entry into FD SCC 10.04 – Aerial Structure costs was greatly reduced from the previous Entry into PE milestone, which appears to have been an originally conservative prediction. Shortly after the Entry into FD time point, the project design in the Harbor Park area was altered as part of a value engineering exercise, where retaining walls and fill material were replaced with an aerial structure to reduce costs. These savings are reflected in the FFGA estimate. The Entry into FD milestone was the closest prediction for SCC 10.04 costs.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences While the Entry into FD total value for SCC 10 was consistent with the predictions made at Entry into PE, it remained short of the costs recognized in the After condition. Incongruities were seen in subcategories 10.01, 10.09, and 10.10, suggesting that predictions for embedded and ballasted track costs were underestimated. It should be noted that Entry into FD cost predictions were inaccurate in a manner consistent with those shown in the Entry into PE milestone, and when accounting for 2006 constant year dollars, the underestimation of Entry into FD costs was greater than that seen in the Entry into PE predictions. Pricing inaccuracies may have been a factor; however, it is likely that schedule delays encountered throughout the duration of construction were the primary impact on this prediction. Construction difficulties are discussed in more detail in the “Capital Costs at FFGA” section of this report.

Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal (SCC 20) At Entry into FD, the Tide project continues to include eleven stations along the alignment. The FD condition includes the single car platforms shown in the Entry into PE plan, and not the two-car platform ultimately constructed at the NSU station. The costs for sitework were not captured under this SCC during construction (represented in the Actual values); many of these costs are included in SCC 10, contributing to the large discrepancies shown in Table 33.

Shown in SCC 20.01, the predicted costs have decreased by approximately $3.4 million as compared to the Entry into PE. With stop platform civil elements attributed to SCC 10 (mentioned above), comparisons to SCC 20.01 are difficult.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 29 The Tide Light Rail Project

Additional anticipated costs for elevators were identified at this milestone for the NSU station.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences The construction costs documented in the After milestone assigned most station construction values to SCC 10 subcategories, and therefore recognized only minor costs in SCC 20. In contrast, the Entry into FD condition assigned these values to three SCC 20 subcategories. The Entry into FD predicted SCC 20 value was nearly $5.7 million – notably less than the Entry into PE prediction and very similar to that made during FFGA. However, an accurate comparison to the After condition cannot be made due to the reasons previously discussed. One prediction that can be compared is that of SCC 20.07 – Elevators, Escalators. The constructed cost recognized in the After condition is significantly higher than the predicted values.

Table 33 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 20 Details Stations, Stops, Entry Into Entry into 20 Terminals, Intermodal Actual PE FD FFGA At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform (FY05 20.01 New Starts cost estimate $ 179,749 $ 7,668,404 $ 4,219,000 $ 4,285,000 combined stations and park- and-rides) Aerial station, stop, shelter, 20.02 $ 65,620 $ 1,019,228 $ 1,250,000 $ 1,188,000 mall, terminal, platform Underground station, stop, 20.03 shelter, mall, terminal, $ - $ - $ - $ - platform Other stations, landings, 20.04 terminals: Intermodal, ferry, $ 70,708 $ - $ - $ - trolley, etc. 20.05 Joint Development $ - $ - $ - $ - Automobile parking multi- 20.06 $ - $ - $ - $ - story structure 20.07 Elevators, escalators $ 689,738 $ - $ 187,000 $ 198,000 $ 1,005,816 $8,687,632 $ 5,657,000 $ 5,671,000 SCC 20 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $0.9 M $9.1 M $5.2 M $5.2 M

Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administrative Buildings (SCC 30) The predicted costs at Entry into FD were based on similar assumptions made in the Entry into PE estimate, however, the overall cost of SCC 30 increased by approximately $4.8 million. This increase, included under SCC 30.05 – Yard Trackwork, likely represents an increased level of detail for the design as many of the quantities and proposed construction elements did not change. This value was still an overestimation of the Actual costs recognized.

30 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 34 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 30 Details Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Entry Into Entry into 30 Terminals Actual PE FD FFGA Admin bldg: Office, sales, storage, 30.01 $42,000 $ - $ - $ - revenue counting Light Maintenance Facility ("Shops 30.02 and Equipment" in FY05 New $9,826,072 $9,641,256 $8,270,000 $9,240,000 Starts) 30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility $ - $ - $ - $ - Storage or Maintenance of Way 30.04 $49,697 $ - $ - $ - Building 30.05 Yard Trackwork $2,435,809 $2,499,080 $8,721,000 $8,380,000 $12,353,579 $12,140,336 $16,991,000 $17,620,000 SCC 30 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $11.3 M $12.7 M $15.4 M $15.4 M

Sitework & Special Conditions (SCC 40) Entry into FD is the lowest milestone for SCC 40 values in either the submitted or 2006 constant year dollar prediction, representing only two thirds of the Entry into PE value and predicting only one quarter of the After condition costs. There are many areas of significant cost deviations, most notably SCC 40.01, 40.02, and 40.08. As discussed in the As-Built section of this report, SCC 40 inherited many project costs incurred during construction. It seems apparent that these items, likely including earthwork, demolition, environmental mitigation, real estate, and utility relocation costs, were not included, or were significantly underestimated, in the Entry into FD estimate.

Table 35 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 40 Details Entry Into Entry into 40 Sitework and Special Conditions Actual PE FD FFGA Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork 40.01 (includes "Yard Sitework" from $7,760,031 $2,027,802 $703,000 $662,000 FY05 New Starts) 40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation $15,515,744 $14,329,839 $7,340,000 $7,579,000 Hazmat, contaminated soil 40.03 removal/mitigation, ground $876,771 $ - $1,540,000 $1,523,000 water treatments Environmental Mitigation, e.g. 40.04 wetlands, historic/archeological, $2,122,803 $1,477,554 $514,000 $547,000 parks Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls 40.05 $3,601,689 $315,079 $ - $ - (Extension of pedestrian bridge near yard??) Pedestrian/bike access and 40.06 $5,047,049 $ - $382,000 $248,000 accommodation, landscaping

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 31 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 35 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 40 Details Entry Into Entry into 40 Sitework and Special Conditions Actual PE FD FFGA 40.07 Road/street mods $5,507,043 $3,757,296 $3,987,000 $6,111,000 Temporary Facilities and other 40.08 indirect costs during $15,770,916 $ - $ - $ - construction $56,202,050 $21,907,569 $14,466,000 $16,670,000 SCC 40 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $50.9 M $23.2 M $12.5 M $12.5 M

Systems (SCC 50) The Entry into FD Physical Scope for the signaling and communications system at this milestone is consistent with the Entry into PE assumptions but vastly different than what was constructed in the After condition. Variations were anticipated in both the Traction Power and OCS subcategories between Entry into PE and Entry into FD, however, neither milestone anticipated the signaling system and crossing protection ultimate constructed.

Note that the difference of approximately $5.3 million between the Entry into FD and After condition is not accurate, as approximately $9 million in traction power substation costs were included under different SCC codes during project construction.

Table 36 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 50 Details 50 Systems Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA 50.01 Train Control and signals $9,690,145 $3,448,620 $2,560,000 $2,484,000 Traffic signals and 50.02 $9,712,932 $4,076,269 $4,125,000 $4,870,000 crossing protection 50.03 TPSS $554,389 $4,717,712 $7,470,000 $ 10,027,000 50.04 OCS $13,923,516 $11,584,604 $12,751,000 $13,044,000 50.05 Communication $642,502 $536,606 $550,000 $524,000 50.06 Fare Collection $ - $2,216,713 $1,825,000 $1,553,000 50.07 Central Control $ - $ - $ - $ - $34,523,487 $26,580,523 $29,281,000 $32,502,000 SCC 50 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $30.7 M $27.6 M $25.6 M $25.6 M

ROW, Land, Existing Improvements (SCC 60) Entry into FD predictions for real estate needs on the project were nearly identical to those made at Entry into PE. The predicted amount remained stable however, when accounting for 2006 constant year dollars; it appears that the moderate increase in submitted prediction value was insufficient to address inflation costs encountered over this period. This initial Entry into FD estimation of project costs in SCC 60.02 ultimately was insufficient for the needs of the project.

32 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 37 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 60 Details ROW, Land, Existing 60 Improvements Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA Purchase or lease of real estate (FY05 New Starts cost estimate combined these two 60.01 $15,157,193 $10,461,000 $10,305,000 $10,406,000 line items into "Property Acquisition including Escl & Relocation") Relocation of existing 60.02 $788,307 $221,000 $308,000 households and businesses $15,945,500 $10,461,000 $10,526,000 $10,714,000 SCC 60 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $14.5 M $11.3 M $10.5 M $10.5 M

Vehicles (SCC 70) HRT assumed nine vehicles at all phases of the project, including Entry into FD. The overestimated costs represented at this milestone are inflated from the original Entry into PE value, presumably with the assumption that HRT may need to purchase vehicles independently. It is understood that HRT was later able to obtain the vehicles at a reduced rate by piggybacking on Charlotte’s Siemen’s S-70 order. This real reduction in project costs is most visible when comparing the Entry into FD and After milestones.

Table 38 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 70 Details 70 Vehicles Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA 70.01 Light Rail $36,066,517 $26,557,373 $38,039,000 $36,015,000.00 70.02 Heavy Rail $ - $ - $ - $ - 70.03 Commuter Rail $ - $ - $ - $ - 70.04 Bus $ - $3,141,600 $3,825,000 $ - 70.05 Other $ - $ - $ - $ - 70.06 Non-revenue vehicles $ - $ - $ - $ - 70.07 Spare parts $ - $ - $ - $ - $36,066,517 $29,698,973 $41,864,000 $36,015,000

SCC 70 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $32.7 M $31.7 M $36.8 M $33.4 M Professional Services (SCC 80) The Entry into FD milestone predicted an overall increase in SCC 80 costs when compared to the Entry into PE milestone. Subcategory 80.08 – Start-up and Testing was noticeably absent from this prediction. This milestone did not predict the intense Professional Services costs recognized during construction and at the After milestone.

Table 39 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 80 Details 80 Professional Services Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA 80.01 Preliminary Engineering $8,754,000 $ - $8,045,000 $9,032,000

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 33 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 39 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 80 Details 80 Professional Services Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA 80.02 Final Design $17,323,163 $9,282,435 $8,819,000 $7,738,000 Project Management for 80.03 $21,680,086 $ - $5,951,000 $5,881,000 Design and Construction Construction Administration 80.04 $13,279,442 $17,626,598 $11,014,000 $10,524,000 & Management 80.05 Insurance $7,975,637 $5,222,827 $5,309,000 $5,745,000 Legal, Permits, Review Fees 80.06 $421,318 $1,393,403 $1,155,000 $1,135,000 by other agencies/cities Surveys, Testing, 80.07 $ - $ - $2,075,000 $ - Investigation, Inspection 80.08 System Start-up $7,374,425 $2,000,000 $ - $2,064,000 $76,808,071 $35,525,263 $42,368,000 $42,119,000 SCC 80 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $71.8 M $38.6 M $40.8 M $40.8 M

Unallocated Contingency (SCC 90) Unallocated Contingency was identified and included in the Entry into FD milestone as 5% of overall project cost, an insufficient amount to cover the unanticipated costs encountered during construction.

Table 40 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 90 Details 90 Unallocated Contingency Actual (After) Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA $ - $ - $11,341,000 $10,757,000 SCC 90 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $0.0 M $0.0 M $10.0 M $10.0 M

Finance Charges (SCC 100) Entry into FD estimated finance charges to be approximately 2% of project costs. Only a nominal amount of funds was ultimately used in this SCC.

Table 41 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 100 Details 100 Finance Charges Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA $ 51,987 $ - $5,612,000 $3,938,000 SCC 100 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $0.0 M $0.0 M $4.9 M $4.9 M

Capital Costs at Full Funding Grant Agreement In general, the capital costs identified at receipt of FFGA are very similar to those defined in the Entry into FD, with a total project cost estimate set at $232,102,000. The physical scope and corresponding capital cost estimate of the project remained relatively unchanged from the previous milestone, with the very similar predictions of final project costs as were utilized in the Entry into FD estimate.

34 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

The FFGA Capital Cost time point represents the final estimate of capital costs prior to beginning of construction. The Full Funding Grant Agreement was approved by FTA on October 1, 2007. After this date, plans were immediately finalized, bid, and conformed. Construction on the first project contract – Contract 20 – began only a few months later, on January 14th, 2008.

The schedule developed for the FFGA shifted and shortened the predicted construction duration slightly from that proposed at the Entry into FD milestone, while maintaining the previously stated opening date in 2009. Construction durations were reduced to 2.5 years, to occur between mid-2007 and end of 2009. This prediction at FFGA proved inaccurate compared to the actual construction duration. Utility coordination, construction delays, rights-of-way acquisition, and change orders extended the construction duration from the predicted opening in early 2010 to late 2011.

Table 42 FFGA Schedule compared to Actual Construction Schedule

Contracts 10 and 20 were released for construction in early 2008. Contract 30 was issued shortly thereafter; however, construction progress was halted due to utility relocation and right-of-way issues. The impact this early delay in the construction phase had on the overall project schedule was not fully realized due to the fact that there was no fully integrated construction schedule developed for the project at that time. The interaction between the various contracts and contractors was not fully understood until much later in the construction phase.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 35 The Tide Light Rail Project

Guideway and Track Elements (SCC 10) The project limits of the Tide system remained relatively consistent throughout the project milestones, having approximately 7.4 miles of ballasted and embedded double track corridor. Cost variations between the milestones during project design reflect an increase in detail and definition, and continue to be incongruous with the After costs recognized on the project.

FFGA 10.04 – Aerial Structure costs were reduced from the previous milestones due to a change in the design. An elevated section of track designed to be retaining walls and structural fill between Brambleton and Holt Street was revised to be an open deck structure with almost no fill. This new design reduced the estimated cost, accounting for the reduction shown between Entry into FD and FFGA. These savings were not recognized in the After condition, likely primarily due to project delays.

Table 43 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 10 Details Guideway and Entry Into 10 Track Elements Actual PE Entry into FD FFGA 10.01 At-Grade exclusive ROW $ 28,674,685 $ 10,929,459 $ 4,664,000 $ 5,276,000 10.02 At-Grade semi-exclusive $ 10,643 $ - $ 5,846,000 $ 6,893,000 10.03 At-Grade in mixed traffic $ (12,600) $ - $ - $ - 10.04 Aerial structure $ 25,570,861 $ 27,851,545 $ 18,235,000 $ 16,339,000 10.05 Built-up Fill $ 123,201 $ - $ - $ - 10.06 Underground cut & cover $ - $ - $ - $ - 10.07 Underground tunnel $ - $ - $ - $ - 10.08 Retained cut or fill $ 5,219,571 $ - $ 8,101,000 $ 7,678,000 10.09 Track: direct fixation $ 7,430,559 $ 1,179,227 $ 2,521,000 $ 3,052,000 10.10 Track: embedded $ 9,221,255 $ 2,499,330 $ 5,644,000 $ 5,270,000 10.11 Track: ballasted $ 3,942,933 $ 8,932,044 $ 10,803,000 $ 10,087,000 10.12 Track: Special (switches) $ 2,976,829 $ 2,095,400 $ 1,398,000 $ 1,501,000 Track: vibration and noise 10.13 $ 585,212 $ - $ - $ - damp. $ 83,743,148 $ 53,487,005 $ 57,211,000 $ 56,096,000 SCC 10 – 2006 Constant Year Dollars $75.8 M $56.7 M $52.0 M $52.0 M

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences: While the FFGA total value for SCC 10 was consistent with the predictions made at Entry into FD, it remained short of the costs recognized in the After condition. As with the Entry into FD, variances were apparent in subcategories 10.01, 10.09, and 10.10. However, even when accounting for extra items (such as the TPSS units in 10.01), both embedded and ballasted track installation costs were underestimated. This is likely due to project design changes during construction, as discussed in the “After” section of this report.

Concerning project bids, contractor bid prices were relatively in line with engineering estimates for the first two contracts addressing structural construction and wetland remediation / installation. The first

36 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

unit bid prices noticeably inconsistent with engineer expectations were those of bridge track and ballast track in Contracts 30 and 40. These costs are shown in subcategories 10.01 and 10.04.

Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal (SCC 20) The Tide project includes eleven stations along the alignment at both the After and FFGA milestones. Originally envisioned with single car platforms, a two-car platform was ultimately constructed at the NSU station. The costs for the sitework were not captured under this SCC in the After condition; many of these costs are included in SCC 40 (see As-Built section above), contributing to the large discrepancies shown in Table 44.

Table 44 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 20 Details Stations, Stops, Entry Into Entry into 20 Terminals, Intermodal Actual PE FD FFGA At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform (FY05 20.01 New Starts cost estimate $ 179,749 $ 7,668,404 $ 4,219,000 $ 4,285,000 combined stations and park- and-rides) Aerial station, stop, shelter, 20.02 $ 65,620 $ 1,019,228 $ 1,250,000 $ 1,188,000 mall, terminal, platform Underground station, stop, 20.03 shelter, mall, terminal, $ - $ - $ - $ - platform Other stations, landings, 20.04 terminals: Intermodal, ferry, $ 70,708 $ - $ - $ - trolley, etc. 20.05 Joint Development $ - $ - $ - $ - Automobile parking multi- 20.06 $ - $ - $ - $ - story structure 20.07 Elevators, escalators $ 689,738 $ - $ 187,000 $ 198,000 $ 1,005,816 $8,687,632 $ 5,657,000 $ 5,671,000 SCC 20 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $0.9 M $9.1 M $5.2 M $5.2 M

Improved site furnishings, including a substitution of unique shelters in place of prefabricated structures, and upgrades to proposed railings, were required by the City of Norfolk and included in the project for approval through the design review process and Planning Commission. Accommodations were also made for NSU at their station. The university requested the elevator location be moved to the west side of Brambleton Avenue, from the east side shown in the project plans. The request was made during construction, and was implemented by HRT. The resulting redesign and revised construction costs ultimately added an additional $4 million to the project. These items were not included in the FFGA.

Accuracy of Predictions and Causes of Differences Construction costs for the After condition were not accurately predicted in the FFGA. As stated previously, values represented in SCC 20 for the After condition do not appear to include concrete

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 37 The Tide Light Rail Project

sitework for platforms, curb, ramps, and other various civil construction elements. Costs predicted in the FFGA estimate mimic those presented in the Entry into FD milestone.

Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administrative Buildings (SCC 30) The predictions made for the Norfolk Tide project during Entry into PE and Entry into FD were largely carried into the FFGA milestone. These pre-construction predictions did not include some of the ultimately-required costly elements of the site. A brick façade and associated enhanced foundations for the building, as well as a “stinger” traction power system ultimately installed and utilized to move vehicles in the shop building, were not identified in the FFGA but were added to the project scope and cost during construction. Several retaining walls were also removed from the design as part of a value engineering proposal, slightly reducing the SCC 30 costs.

Originally envisioned as a simple structure, a brick façade was added to the NTF design during construction at the request of the City of Norfolk and NSU during negotiations for obtaining project right-of-way. The weight of the added brick façade necessitated additional design efforts, increasing construction costs and delaying work until the summer of 2011. It was this delay and the delivery of light rail vehicles prior to completion of the facility that required work to be removed from Contract 80 and later issued as Contracts 180 and 230. This enabled the light rail vehicles to be stored and tested in a separate temporary facility during NTF completion. These three contracts total $173,382, of which $49,697 is coded to SCC 30.04. The separate facility at Sewell’s Point, located on a former rail spur near Moseley Creek, includes a tail track and temporary shelter building which is still retained and maintained by HRT.

Table 45 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 30 Details Support Facilities: Yards, 30 Shops, Terminals Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA Admin bldg: Office, sales, 30.01 $42,000 $ - $ - $ - storage, revenue counting Light Maintenance Facility 30.02 ("Shops and Equipment" in $9,826,072 $9,641,256 $8,270,000 $9,240,000 FY05 New Starts) 30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility $ - $ - $ - $ - Storage or Maintenance of 30.04 $49,697 $ - $ - $ - Way Building 30.05 Yard Trackwork $2,435,809 $2,499,080 $8,721,000 $8,380,000 $12,353,579 $12,140,336 $16,991,000 $17,620,000 SCC 30 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $11.3 M $12.7 M $15.4 M $15.4 M

Sitework & Special Conditions (SCC 40) The FFGA milestone, while not having the lowest predicted estimate for SCC 40, did not accurately predict the ultimate costs associated with the Sitework and Special Conditions. This milestone represented only about one quarter of the costs ultimately recognized in SCC 40 in the After milestone (a similar value when accounting for 2006 constant year dollars), which includes significantly higher costs for Demolition and Earthwork (SCC 40.01) among other SCC’s.

38 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Change orders recognized in SCC 40 totaled over $12.6 million and more than 380 days in contract delays. These costs and delays are attributable to a number of factors, most notably the mitigation of asbestos encountered with the demolition of the Kirn Library and Baylor buildings for project construction, unsuitable subsurface (soil) condition issues and overrunning of fill material quantities encountered on both Contracts 40 and 40A on track and roadway construction, and the large delays incumbent upon the issuance of Contract 40. When this contract was ultimately awarded, HRT could only release the contractor to perform construction at the end-of-line near EVMC, in and around Harbor Park, and the bridge over Smith Creek near Brambleton Avenue. Due to continued real estate acquisition and ongoing utility relocation prior to contract award, nearly all other locations on the project were unavailable to the contractor.

In addition to the challenges noted above, several SCC 40 items were added to or expanded upon during the construction phase. The demolition of several buildings and the resulting mitigation of asbestos delayed the project schedule and added to project costs. Noise abatement, in the form of sound walls, was constructed for at least one park-and-ride facility. Other items, such as the delayed design and real estate acquisition for two parking facilities, exacerbated the impacts to SCC 40 subcategories.

Utility cost assumptions were based on a city franchise agreement, meaning the project had virtually no estimated cost for the relocation of private utilities. This assumption proved inaccurate as it did not account for the power feed needs of the new traction power substations, power meters for train and traffic signal cabinets, and other power feed needs resulting from the project. Additionally, a large transmission duct bank was ultimately needed by Dominion Virginia Power to maintain service to the city and the new light rail line. Months of delays and several million dollars in utility costs not anticipated by or included in the FFGA were recognized in the After project.

Table 46 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 40 Details Entry Into Entry into 40 Sitework and Special Conditions Actual PE FD FFGA Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork 40.01 (includes "Yard Sitework" from $7,760,031 $2,027,802 $703,000 $662,000 FY05 New Starts) 40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation $15,515,744 $14,329,839 $7,340,000 $7,579,000 Hazmat, contaminated soil 40.03 removal/mitigation, ground $876,771 $ - $1,540,000 $1,523,000 water treatments Environmental Mitigation, e.g. 40.04 wetlands, historic/archeological, $2,122,803 $1,477,554 $514,000 $547,000 parks Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls 40.05 $3,601,689 $315,079 $ - $ - (Extension of pedestrian bridge near yard??) Pedestrian/bike access and 40.06 $5,047,049 $ - $382,000 $248,000 accommodation, landscaping

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 39 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 46 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 40 Details Entry Into Entry into 40 Sitework and Special Conditions Actual PE FD FFGA 40.07 Road/street mods $5,507,043 $3,757,296 $3,987,000 $6,111,000 Temporary Facilities and other 40.08 indirect costs during $15,770,916 $ - $ - $ - construction $56,202,050 $21,907,569 $14,466,000 $16,670,000 SCC 40 – 2006 Constant Year Dollars $50.9 M $23.2 M $12.5 M $12.5 M

As mentioned in the After section of this memo, the predicted scope and schedule of SCC 40 work proved to be inaccurate during construction, and in turn contributed to some of the project financial overruns encountered. Predicted to be constructed between mid-2007 and the end of 2009, the actual construction schedule for SCC 40 items was not finished until beginning of revenue service in August of 2011.

Systems (SCC 50) The project cost developed at FFGA reflected a system that functioned on line-of-sight operations. This type of operation is much less expensive than other train control systems typically used on light rail systems. The need for a more sophisticated communications system became apparent early in the construction process. Acting upon direction provided in the Draft Norfolk Light Rail Project Assessment, dated October 23, 2008 (Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation), HRT issued an official change order for the inclusion of train control and communication items in 2010. Completion of the conduit network and installation of the communication system occurred in 2011 immediately prior to opening of the system. These items were not included in the FFGA document or cost estimate.

The Tide project was constructed with a communications and signaling system at the direction of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT). Elements implemented with this change order include a SCADA system connecting the operations center to the TPSS units, a communications duct bank, and basic train control systems. As a result, SCC 50 items recognized a significant cost increase. The signaling and communications predicted costs at this milestone are vastly different than what was constructed, as is shown in SCC 50.01 and 50.02.

The total SCC 50 capital costs for the FFGA and After milestones do not reflect the large difference in overall SCC costs. The apparent FFGA milestone overestimations in SCC 50.03 – TPSS and SCC 50.06 – Fare Collection balance out the large underestimations shown in SCC 50.01 and 50.02. However, as discussed earlier, nearly $10 million in Actual costs were coded to SCC’s 10 and 70 rather than to SCC 50.03 and 50.06. When $9 million in TPSS costs from SCC 10 in the After condition are factored into the table below, the costs identified in the FFGA SCC 50.03 appear to provide a more accurate prediction of the Actual costs recognized in the SCC subcategory. Additionally, once that additional $10 million is included in this SCC, the overall value was significantly underestimated at the FFGA milestone.

40 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 47 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 50 Details 50 Systems Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA 50.01 Train Control and signals $9,690,145 $3,448,620 $2,560,000 $2,484,000 Traffic signals and 50.02 $9,712,932 $4,076,269 $4,125,000 $4,870,000 crossing protection 50.03 TPSS $554,389 $4,717,712 $7,470,000 $ 10,027,000 50.04 OCS $13,923,516 $11,584,604 $12,751,000 $13,044,000 50.05 Communication $642,502 $536,606 $550,000 $524,000 50.06 Fare Collection $ - $2,216,713 $1,825,000 $1,553,000 50.07 Central Control $ - $ - $ - $ - $34,523,487 $26,580,523 $29,281,000 $32,502,000 SCC 50 – 2006 Constant Year Dollars $30.7 M $27.6 M $25.6 M $25.6 M

ROW, Land, Existing Improvements (SCC 60) FFGA predictions for real estate needs on the project were nearly identical to those made at Entry into PE and Entry into FD. Real estate needs for utility relocations, the NSU station, and other corridor sites, were acquired during construction and not during the design process, resulting in project delays and additional costs. Envisioned to be performed between October 2007 and March 2008 in the FFGA application, this work occurred throughout the duration of construction. The purchase of right-of-way, and corresponding challenges to do so during construction, led to the redesign and relocation of project features such as two park-and-ride sites. Consequently, the FFGA estimate under-predicted the Actual cost for SCC 60 by a wide margin (over 30% when comparing in 2006 constant year dollars).

Table 48 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 60 Details ROW, Land, Existing 60 Improvements Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA Purchase or lease of real estate (FY05 New Starts cost estimate combined 60.01 these two line items into $15,157,193 $10,461,000 $10,305,000 $10,406,000 "Property Acquisition including Escl & Relocation") Relocation of existing 60.02 $788,307 $221,000 $308,000 households and businesses $15,945,500 $10,461,000 $10,526,000 $10,714,000 SCC 60 – 2006 Constant Year Dollars $14.5 M $11.3 M $10.5 M $10.5 M

Vehicles (SCC 70) As predicted in all of the project milestones, HRT acquired nine Siemens S70 low-floor light rail vehicles for the project. Purchased under the Charlotte Light Rail Vehicle order, the vehicles were delivered to HRT prior to completion of the NTF, requiring installation of a temporary shelter and utilization of a

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 41 The Tide Light Rail Project

temporary test track so that HRT could “burn in” the vehicles. Note that no spare parts were included in the project construction contracts, but rather, were acquired through a separate contract directly between HRT and the vehicle supplier, allowing HRT staff to select the desired spare parts and maintenance equipment for the entire system. This value, included as a subsection of “Start-Up and Pre-Revenue Operations” in final project accounting, is included under SCC 80.08 – System Start-Up. The value of the “parts and materials” is approximately $1.4 million. SCC 70 was accurately predicted, with a minor variation becoming apparent in the 2006 constant year dollar comparison.

Table 49 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 70 Details 70 Vehicles Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA 70.01 Light Rail $36,066,517 $26,557,373 $38,039,000 $36,015,000.00 70.02 Heavy Rail $ - $ - $ - $ - 70.03 Commuter Rail $ - $ - $ - $ - 70.04 Bus $ - $3,141,600 $3,825,000 $ - 70.05 Other $ - $ - $ - $ - 70.06 Non-revenue vehicles $ - $ - $ - $ - 70.07 Spare parts $ - $ - $ - $ - $36,066,517 $29,698,973 $41,864,000 $36,015,000 SCC 70 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $32.7 M $31.7 M $36.8 M $33.4 M

Professional Services (SCC 80) SCC 80 items were utilized throughout the duration of the Tide project. HRT anticipated substantial Construction Administration and Management support from consultants, as is shown in SCC 80.03 and 80.04. The predicted needs at FFGA proved to be inaccurate. The extent of support needed by HRT during construction with respect to project design, management, and inspection, greatly exceeded the budgets anticipated in the FFGA milestone. HRT, as an agency, experienced difficulty in overall project controls both in design and construction phases. Agency oversight of budget and schedules was delegated to team members performing the work. Challenges arising from this approach were not fully addressed until February 2010, when HRT removed the consultant project management team and assumed full control of project oversight, management, and administration. A fully integrated HRT- endorsed staffing plan for all project contracts needs was only developed when HRT assumed full project control. Combined with inherent additional Professional Services costs from the extended schedule, HRT recognized additional SCC 80 costs due to the management challenges described above.

Table 50 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 80 Details 80 Professional Services Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA 80.01 Preliminary Engineering $8,754,000 $ - $8,045,000 $9,032,000 80.02 Final Design $17,323,163 $9,282,435 $8,819,000 $7,738,000 Project Management for 80.03 $21,680,086 $ - $5,951,000 $5,881,000 Design and Construction Construction Administration 80.04 $13,279,442 $17,626,598 $11,014,000 $10,524,000 & Management

42 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 50 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 80 Details 80 Professional Services Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA 80.05 Insurance $7,975,637 $5,222,827 $5,309,000 $5,745,000 Legal, Permits, Review Fees 80.06 $421,318 $1,393,403 $1,155,000 $1,135,000 by other agencies/cities Surveys, Testing, 80.07 $ - $ - $2,075,000 $ - Investigation, Inspection 80.08 System Start-up $7,374,425 $2,000,000 $ - $2,064,000 $76,808,071 $35,525,263 $42,368,000 $42,119,000 SCC 80 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $71.8 M $38.6 M $40.8 M $40.8 M

Unallocated Contingency (SCC 90) The Unallocated Contingency for the project was set at 5% at the FFGA milestone, equating to $10,757,000 (approximately $10 million in 2006 constant year dollars). Nearly all of the project contracts were bid and awarded with no contingency held by HRT. The third contract issued by HRT was Contract 40. Awarded in mid-2008, the contract value exceeded the HRT budget by approximately $17 million, accounting for the entire total available project contingency less than six months into the construction phase. The predictions made in all of the pre-construction milestones did not account for the costs recognized by the project in the After condition.

Table 51 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 90 Details 90 Unallocated Contingency Actual (After) Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA $ - $ - $11,341,000 $10,757,000 SCC 90 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $0.0 M $0.0 M $10.0 M $10.0 M

Finance Charges (SCC 100) The FFGA milestone (as well as the Entry into FD milestone) anticipated Finance Charges for the project totaling around 2% of the project value. Only a nominal amount was recognized in the final construction project.

Table 52 Actual and Predicted Costs – SCC 100 Details 100 Finance Charges Actual Entry Into PE Entry into FD FFGA $ 51,987 $ - $5,612,000 $3,938,000 SCC 100 – 2006 constant Year Dollars $0.0 M $0.0 M $4.9 M $4.9 M

Conclusions and Lessons Learned The Capital Costs Technical Memorandum has summarized the as-built condition and corresponding costs for the Hampton Roads Transit Light Rail Transit Project, also known as The Tide, as well as the capital cost predictions made at three pre-construction milestones: Entry into PE, Entry into FD, and at the FFGA. This memo has also described the accuracy of predictions made at those milestones as compared to the final recognized project capital costs.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 43 The Tide Light Rail Project

The final recognized Capital Costs of the Hampton Roads Transit Light Rail Transit Project, also known as The Tide, was $315,755, 511. This figure, finalized in 2014, accounts for all Standard Cost Categories as defined by FTA for the project, including Professional Services and Finance Charges. This final capital cost recognized in the After condition is significantly different than the predictions made during the Entry into Preliminary Engineering, Entry into Final Design, and Full Funding Grant Agreement milestones, which varied between $198 and $235 million. When accounting for inflation and adjusting costs into 2006 constant year dollars, these pre-construction predictions appear to be consistently 21% to 25% below the final recognized project cost. Inaccuracies in predictions are seen in several standard cost categories, most notably SCC 10 – Guideway and Track Elements, SCC 40 – Sitework and Special Conditions, and SCC 80 – Professional Services. Inflation and overall project duration did impact the capital cost predictions, but when accounting for a constant year of expenditure, unit prices and scope changes had the largest impact.

Assumptions incorporated in the cost forecasts through each phase of project development were based on the best information available at the time and served as justifiable estimates in the Tide Light Rail financial plan; however, some key factors dramatically affected the construction cost and schedule. The predicted physical scope of the project did not significantly change through the course of the pre- construction milestones; however, the project scope did evolve during the construction phase. Many of the cost variations during construction can be attributed to three factors: schedule delays and claims, the addition of physical scope items during construction, and project documentation and controls. These and other lessons learned are described in detail in a letter from HRT to FTA dated December 17, 2012, and also included in the Project Management Plan, Revised Nineteen December 2012.

With respect to Capital Costs, some important findings and lessons learned include:

Schedule The project construction schedule greatly exceeded the duration predicted in design. Possible mitigation of schedule challenges could include development and maintenance of a master project schedule that monitors the progress of all contracts and contractors from receipt of FFGA to completion of construction. Additionally, addressing project unknowns ahead of construction through advanced Utility Relocation contracts and by purchasing of right-of-way and easements could have addressed or mitigated project delay issues. HRT is committed to actively monitoring program schedules in a holistic manner on all future work.

Design Scope versus Constructed Infrastructure Several project items appear to have been unresolved during the design process but included in the constructed project after FFGA, resulting in changes during the construction phase and contributing to the inaccuracies of cost predictions. Major assumptions made before Entry into PE for the purpose of reducing project capital costs, such as removal of a train signaling system and operational control center. Many of these assumptions were proved to inaccurate during construction and were added back into the project. These reintroduced items, accompanied by other items added during construction, account for the largest amount of discrepancy between actual and predicted capital costs. HRT is committed to sharing project details, including base assumptions, designs, and budgets, with stakeholders throughout the design and construction phases of future projects, in an effort to identify and address scope and capital costs issues before they become an issue.

44 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Project Documentation and FTA Requirements Both the HRT internal staff and consultant team struggled with FTA documentation requirements and strict adherence to the FFGA. The resulting construction documentation resulted in some confusion in monitoring capital costs during project execution and in post-construction accounting. As a lesson learned, and in an effort to mitigate this issue on future projects, HRT intends to pursue improved oversight and specific direction FTA, specifically with respect to base assumptions made at the beginning of the project. HRT has already expanded staff resources to include experience in the construction of major transit corridors in order to better vet base project assumptions while bringing familiarity with FTA processes and FFGA requirements. With expanded in-house resources and FTA involvement, HRT will be able to efficiently direct their consultant team and effectively manage future projects.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 45 The Tide Light Rail Project

Appendix 1

46 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project Hampton Roads Transit - After Study - Capital Costs Technical Memorandum

Analysis of capital costs predicted at the milestones: Entry into PE, Entry into FD, and FFGA

Components Annual Costs ($ millions) SOURCE Inflation Expend Calc Year Notes Dollar Year Total Cost Total Rates Sched 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

ACTUAL YOE actual actual actual A 314.6 0.0 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 7.5 40.6 75.3 73.1 70.6 30.0 2.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 Actual $YOE costs from the "actual" tab DERIVED 2003 actual actual actual B 242.6 0.0 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.2 6.3 32.7 58.8 55.6 52.1 21.6 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 Actual $YOE costs from A translated to constant $2003 DERIVED 2006 actual actual actual C 281.0 0.0 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.7 7.3 37.9 68.1 64.4 60.3 25.0 1.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 Actual $YOE costs from A translated to constant $2006 DERIVED 2007 actual actual actual D 288.7 0.0 4.4 4.2 4.0 3.8 7.5 38.9 70.0 66.2 62.0 25.7 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 Actual $YOE costs from A translated to constant $2007

PE ENTRY 2003 pred pred pred E 182.0 0.0 3.3 10.3 48.6 63.4 54.5 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Predicted $2003 costs from the 'e2pe' tab PE ENTRY YOE pred pred pred F 198.3 0.0 3.3 10.7 51.5 69.3 61.4 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Predicted $YOE costs from the 'e2pe' tab DERIVED YOE actual pred pred G 264.4 0.0 4.5 14.2 68.7 92.4 81.8 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $YOE costs from $2003 in D inflated with pred rates & pred sched DERIVED YOE actual actual pred H 278.6 0.0 4.5 14.7 72.0 97.9 86.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $YOE costs from $2003 in D inflated with act rates & pred sched DERIVED YOE actual actual actual I 314.6 0.0 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 7.5 40.6 75.3 73.1 70.6 30.0 2.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 $YOE costs from $2003 in C inflated with act rates & act sched Pred - Actual Total cost ($2003) E - B -60.7 0.0 -0.4 6.8 45.2 60.2 48.2 -31.8 -57.9 -55.6 -52.1 -21.6 -1.5 -0.3 0.0 0.0 PvA difference in $2003 costs Pred - Actual Total cost ($YOE) F - A -116.3 0.0 -0.4 6.9 47.8 65.5 53.9 -39.6 -74.2 -73.1 -70.6 -30.0 -2.1 -0.4 0.0 0.0 PvA difference in $YOE costs Pred - Actual -caused by scope/unit-cost differences F - G -66.1 0.0 -1.1 -3.6 -17.2 -23.1 -20.5 -0.4 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Component of difference caused by $2003 differences Pred - Actual -caused by inflation-rate differences G - H -14.2 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -3.3 -5.5 -4.7 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Component of difference caused by inflation-rate differences Pred - Actual -caused by schedule differences H - I -36.0 0.0 0.7 10.9 68.3 94.1 79.0 -39.1 -73.8 -73.1 -70.6 -30.0 -2.1 -0.4 0.0 0.0 Component of difference caused by schedule differences

FD ENTRY 2006 pred pred pred E 213.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.2 14.7 59.7 110.4 20.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Predicted $2006 costs from the 'e2fd' tab FD ENTRY YOE pred pred pred F 235.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.2 15.2 64.4 123.8 24.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Predicted $YOE costs from the 'e2fd' tab DERIVED YOE actual pred pred G 309.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.3 20.0 84.8 162.8 31.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $YOE costs from $2006 in D inflated with pred rates & pred sched DERIVED YOE actual actual pred H 330.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.3 21.4 90.9 173.3 33.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $YOE costs from $2006 in D inflated with act rates & pred sched DERIVED YOE actual actual actual I 314.6 0.0 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 7.5 40.6 75.3 73.1 70.6 30.0 2.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 $YOE costs from $2006 in C inflated with act rates & act sched Pred - Actual Total cost ($2006) E - B -29.1 0.0 -3.7 -3.5 4.5 -3.0 8.4 27.0 51.6 -34.9 -52.1 -21.6 -1.5 -0.3 0.0 0.0 PvA difference in $2006 costs Pred - Actual Total cost ($YOE) F - A -79.3 0.0 -3.7 -3.7 3.8 -3.5 7.8 23.8 48.5 -49.0 -70.6 -30.0 -2.1 -0.4 0.0 0.0 PvA difference in $YOE costs Pred - Actual -caused by scope/unit-cost differences F - G -74.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.4 -0.1 -4.8 -20.3 -39.0 -7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Component of difference caused by $2006 differences Pred - Actual -caused by inflation-rate differences G - H -20.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.3 0.0 -1.4 -6.1 -10.5 -1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Component of difference caused by inflation-rate differences Pred - Actual -caused by schedule differences H - I 15.9 0.0 -3.7 -3.7 7.5 -3.4 13.9 50.3 98.0 -39.8 -70.6 -30.0 -2.1 -0.4 0.0 0.0 Component of difference caused by schedule differences

FFGA 2007 pred pred pred E 221.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 5.9 67.3 106.6 32.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Predicted $2007 costs from the 'ffga' tab FFGA YOE pred pred pred F 232.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 5.9 68.9 113.0 35.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Predicted $YOE costs from the 'ffga' tab DERIVED YOE actual pred pred G 302.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 7.7 89.9 147.4 46.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $YOE costs from $2007 in D inflated with pred rates & pred sched DERIVED YOE actual actual pred H 307.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 7.7 91.6 149.6 47.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $YOE costs from $2007 in D inflated with act rates & pred sched DERIVED YOE actual actual actual I 314.6 0.0 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 7.5 40.6 75.3 73.1 70.6 30.0 2.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 $YOE costs from $2007 in C inflated with act rates & act sched Pred - Actual Total cost ($2007) E - B -67.4 0.0 -4.4 -4.2 3.8 -3.8 -1.6 28.3 36.6 -33.2 -61.1 -25.7 -1.8 -0.3 0.0 0.0 PvA difference in $2007 costs Pred - Actual Total cost ($YOE) F - A -82.5 0.0 -3.7 -3.7 4.0 -3.7 -1.6 28.3 37.7 -37.6 -69.6 -30.0 -2.1 -0.4 0.0 0.0 PvA difference in $YOE costs Pred - Actual -caused by scope/unit-cost differences F - G -70.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.4 0.0 -1.8 -21.0 -34.4 -10.8 -0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Component of difference caused by $2007 differences Pred - Actual -caused by inflation-rate differences G - H -4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 -1.7 -2.1 -1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Component of difference caused by inflation-rate differences Pred - Actual -caused by schedule differences H - I -7.5 0.0 -3.7 -3.7 5.7 -3.7 0.2 50.9 74.3 -25.6 -69.3 -30.0 -2.1 -0.4 0.0 0.0 Component of difference caused by schedule differences

Dollar converstion factors Milestone From year to year with specified annual rates of inflation Year Notes 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 This year to 2003 using predicted rates --- 1.000 1.000 0.971 0.943 0.915 0.888 0.863 0.837 0.806 0.781 0.756 0.732 0.709 0.687 0.665 To translate normalized $YOE predicted costs to $2003 Dollar This year to 2003 using actual rates --- 1.024 1.000 0.941 0.899 0.864 0.840 0.806 0.781 0.761 0.737 0.719 0.701 0.682 0.664 0.646 To translate $YOE actual costs to $2003 conversions for 2003 to this year using predicted rates --- 1.000 1.000 1.030 1.061 1.093 1.126 1.159 1.194 1.240 1.281 1.322 1.365 1.410 1.455 1.503 To replicate inflation effects predicted at e2pe predicted PE entry 2003 to this year using actual rates --- 0.977 1.000 1.063 1.112 1.158 1.190 1.241 1.280 1.315 1.356 1.390 1.426 1.467 1.507 1.547 To translate $2003 actual and predicted costs to $YOE actual This year to 2006 using predicted rates --- 1.173 1.173 1.173 1.173 1.104 1.039 1.000 0.963 0.927 0.892 0.859 0.832 0.806 0.780 0.756 To translate normalized $YOE predicted costs to $2006 Dollar This year to 2006 using actual rates --- 1.186 1.158 1.089 1.041 1.000 0.973 0.933 0.904 0.881 0.854 0.833 0.812 0.789 0.769 0.748 To translate $YOE actual costs to $2006 conversions for 2006 to this year using predicted rates --- 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.852 0.906 0.963 1.000 1.039 1.079 1.121 1.164 1.202 1.241 1.281 1.323 To replicate inflation effects predicted at e2fd E2FD 2006 to this year using actual rates --- 0.844 0.864 0.918 0.961 1.000 1.028 1.072 1.106 1.136 1.171 1.201 1.232 1.267 1.301 1.336 To translate $2006 actual and predicted costs to $YOE This year to 2007 using predicted rates --- 0.971 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.976 0.943 0.927 0.892 0.859 0.832 0.806 0.780 0.756 To translate normalized $YOE predicted costs to $2007 Dollar This year to 2007 using actual rates --- 1.218 1.190 1.120 1.070 1.028 1.000 0.959 0.930 0.905 0.877 0.856 0.834 0.811 0.790 0.769 To translate $YOE actual costs to $2007 conversions for 2007 to this year using predicted rates --- 1.030 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.024 1.060 1.079 1.121 1.164 1.202 1.241 1.281 1.323 To replicate inflation effects predicted at ffga FFGA 2007 to this year using actual rates --- 0.821 0.840 0.893 0.935 0.973 1.000 1.043 1.076 1.105 1.140 1.168 1.198 1.233 1.266 1.300 To translate $2007 actual and predicted costs to $YOE

dollar weights dollar weights $const $YOE $const $YOE Dollar-weighted mid-point actual 2009.5 2009.6 Jun09 Feb09 of expenditure e2pe 2005.9 2005.9 = Nov05 Jan06 e2fd 2008.5 2008.6 Jun08 Sep08 ffga 2008.7 2008.7 Jun08 Jun08 M A I N W O R K S H E E T - B U I L D A L T E R N A T I V E (Rev.16, June, 2014)

Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Today's Date 8/28/03

City of Norfolk, VA Yr of Base Year $ 2003

Phase: PE Yr of Revenue Ops 2007

Quantity Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year YOE Dollars Total Dollars w/o Dollars Dollars Dollars Unit Dollars Dollars (X000) Percentage Percentage Contingency Allocated TOTAL Cost of of (X000) Contingency (X000) (X000) Construction Total (X000) Cost Project Cost 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 5.50 48,955 - 48,955 8,901 44% 27% 53,485 10.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way 4.90 10,003 10,003 2,041 10,929 10.02 Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic) - - 10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic - - 10.04 Guideway: Aerial structure 0.60 25,492 25,492 42,487 27,851 10.05 Guideway: Built-up fill - - 10.06 Guideway: Underground cut & cover - - 10.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel - - 10.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill - - 10.09 Track: Direct fixation 1,079 1,079 1,179 10.10 Track: Embedded 2,287 2,287 2,499 10.11 Track: Ballasted 8,175 8,175 8,932 10.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) 1,918 1,918 2,095 10.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening - - 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 11 7,833 - 7,833 712 7% 4% 8,687 20.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 10 6,915 6,915 691 7,668 20.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 1 919 919 919 1,019 20.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform - - 20.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc. - - 20.05 Joint development - - 20.06 Automobile parking multi-story structure - - 20.07 Elevators, escalators - - 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 5.50 10,948 - 10,948 1,990 10% 6% 12,140 30.01 Administration Building: Office, sales, storage, revenue counting - - 30.02 Light Maintenance Facility 8,694 8,694 9,641 30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility - - 30.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building - - 30.05 Yard and Yard Track 2,254 2,254 2,499 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 5.50 20,054 - 20,054 3,646 18% 11% 21,908 40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork 1,856 1,856 2,028 40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 13,118 13,118 14,330 40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments - - 40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks 1,353 1,353 1,478 40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls 288 288 315 40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping - - 40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots 3,439 3,439 3,757 40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction - - 50 SYSTEMS 5.50 23,831 - 23,831 4,333 21% 13% 26,582 50.01 Train control and signals 3,092 3,092 3,449 50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 3,654 3,654 4,076 50.03 Traction power supply: substations 4,230 4,230 4,718 50.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail 10,386 10,386 11,585 50.05 Communications 481 481 537 50.06 Fare collection system and equipment 1,988 1,988 2,217 50.07 Central Control - - - Construction Subtotal (10 - 50) 5.50 111,621 - 111,621 20,295 100% 61% 122,802 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 5.50 9,789 - 9,789 1,780 5% 10,461 60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate 9,789 - 9,789 10,461 60.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses - - 70 VEHICLES (number) 20 27,387 - 27,387 1,369 15% 29,698 70.01 Light Rail 9 24,491 - 24,491 2,721 26,557 70.02 Heavy Rail - - 70.03 Commuter Rail - - 70.04 Bus 11 2,897 2,897 263 3,141 70.05 Other - - 70.06 Non-revenue vehicles - - 70.07 Spare parts - - 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 5.50 33,378 - 33,378 6,069 30% 18% 35,313 80.01 Project Development - - 80.02 Engineering 8,721 8,721 9,226 80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction - - 80.04 Construction Administration & Management 16,562 16,562 17,522 80.05 Professional Liability and other Non-Construction Insurance 4,907 4,907 5,192 80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc. 1,309 1,309 1,385 80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection - - - 80.08 Start up 1,879 1,879 1,988 Subtotal (10 - 80) 5.50 182,175 - 182,175 33,123 100% 198,274 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY - 0% - Subtotal (10 - 90) 5.50 182,175 33,123 100% 198,274 100 FINANCE CHARGES - 0% - Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 5.50 182,175 33,123 100% 198,274 Allocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 0.00% Unallocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 0.00% Total Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 0.00% Unallocated Contingency as % of Subtotal (10 - 80) 0.00% YOE Construction Cost per Mile (X000) 22,328 YOE Total Project Cost per Mile Not Including Vehicles (X000) 30,650 YOE Total Project Cost per Mile (X000) 36,050 I N F L A T I O N W O R K S H E E T (Rev.16, June, 2014)

Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Today's Date 8/28/03

City of Norfolk, VA Yr of Base Year $ 2003

Phase: PE Yr of Revenue Ops 2007

Insert comments, notes, etc.

Base Yr Double- BASE YEAR DOLLARS (X$000) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Dollars Check Total 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 48,955 48,957 0 0 0 0 - 12,604 24,473 11,880 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 7,833 7,834 0 0 0 0 - - 3,975 3,859 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 10,948 10,948 0 0 0 0 - - 5,555 5,393 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 20,054 20,054 0 0 0 0 - 6,195 8,020 5,839 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 SYSTEMS 23,831 23,830 0 0 0 0 - - 7,298 16,532 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 9,789 9,789 0 0 0 0 - 7,395 2,393 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 VEHICLES (number) 27,387 27,388 0 0 0 0 - 13,997 6,794 6,597 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 33,378 33,166 0 0 0 3,340 10,347 8,371 4,877 4,419 919 893 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY - - 0 0 0 0 ------0 0 0 0 0 0 100 FINANCE CHARGES - - 0 0 0 0 ------0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 182,175 181,966 0 0 0 3,340 10,347 48,562 63,385 54,520 919 893 - 0 0 0 0 0 0

Inflation Rate 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.03000 0.03000 0.03000 0.03000 0.03000 0.03000 0.03874 0.03250 0.03250 0.03250 0.03250 0.03250 0.03250 Compounded Inflation Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0300 1.0609 1.0927 1.1255 1.1593 1.1941 1.2403 1.2806 1.3222 1.3652 1.4096 1.4554 1.5027

YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS (X$000) YOE Dollars 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 53,485 0 0 0 0 - 13,371 26,743 13,371 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 8,687 0 0 0 0 4,344 4,344 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 12,140 0 0 0 0 6,070 6,070 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 21,908 0 0 0 0 6,572 8,763 6,572 - 0 0 0 0 0 50 SYSTEMS 26,582 0 0 0 0 7,975 18,607 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 10,461 0 0 0 0 7,846 2,615 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 VEHICLES (number) 29,698 0 0 0 0 14,849 7,425 7,425 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 35,313 0 0 0 3,340 10,658 8,881 5,329 4,974 1,066 1,066 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 FINANCE CHARGES - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 198,274 0 0 0 3,340 10,658 51,520 69,262 61,363 1,066 1,066 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 M A I N W O R K S H E E T - B U I L D A L T E R N A T I V E (Rev.16, June, 2014)

Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Today's Date 6/6/06

City of Norfolk, VA Yr of Base Year $ 2006

Phase: PE Yr of Revenue Ops 2010

Quantity Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year YOE Dollars Total Dollars w/o Dollars Dollars Dollars Unit Dollars Dollars (X000) Percentage Percentage Contingency Allocated TOTAL Cost of of (X000) Contingency (X000) (X000) Construction Total (X000) Cost Project Cost 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 7.40 46,203 5,755 51,958 7,021 47% 24% 57,212 10.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way 4.90 3,683 552 4,235 864 4,664 10.02 Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic) 1.50 4,617 693 5,310 3,540 5,847 10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic - - 10.04 Guideway: Aerial structure 0.60 14,401 2,160 16,561 27,602 18,236 10.05 Guideway: Built-up fill - - 10.06 Guideway: Underground cut & cover - - 10.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel - - 10.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill 0.40 6,688 669 7,357 18,394 8,101 10.09 Track: Direct fixation 2,081 206 2,287 2,518 10.10 Track: Embedded 4,660 466 5,126 5,644 10.11 Track: Ballasted 8,919 892 9,811 10,803 10.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) 1,154 115 1,269 1,397 10.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening - - 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 11 4,476 729 5,205 473 5% 2% 5,656 20.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 10 3,326 556 3,882 388 4,218 20.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 1 1,000 150 1,150 1,150 1,250 20.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform - - 20.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc. - - 20.05 Joint development - - 20.06 Automobile parking multi-story structure - - 20.07 Elevators, escalators 150 23 173 188 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 7.40 13,991 1,399 15,390 2,080 14% 7% 16,992 30.01 Administration Building: Office, sales, storage, revenue counting - - 30.02 Light Maintenance Facility 6,810 681 7,491 8,271 30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility - - 30.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building - - 30.05 Yard and Yard Track 7,181 718 7,899 8,721 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 7.40 10,953 1,546 12,499 1,689 11% 6% 14,466 40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork 528 79 607 703 40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 5,515 827 6,342 7,340 40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments 1,210 121 1,331 1,540 40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks 404 40 444 514 40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls - - 40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping 300 30 330 382 40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots 2,996 449 3,445 3,987 40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction - - 50 SYSTEMS 7.40 22,380 3,205 25,585 3,457 23% 12% 29,280 50.01 Train control and signals 1,945 292 2,237 2,560 50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 3,134 470 3,604 4,125 50.03 Traction power supply: substations 5,676 851 6,527 7,470 50.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail 9,688 1,453 11,141 12,750 50.05 Communications 418 63 481 550 50.06 Fare collection system and equipment 1,519 76 1,595 1,825 50.07 Central Control - - Construction Subtotal (10 - 50) 7.40 98,003 12,634 110,638 14,951 100% 52% 123,606 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 7.40 10,461 - 10,461 1,414 5% 10,526 60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate 10,241 - 10,241 10,305 60.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses 220 220 221 70 VEHICLES (number) 10 36,618 160 36,778 3,678 17% 41,864 70.01 Light Rail 9 33,418 - 33,418 3,713 38,039 70.02 Heavy Rail - - 70.03 Commuter Rail - - 70.04 Bus 1 3,200 160 3,360 3,360 3,825 70.05 Other - - 70.06 Non-revenue vehicles - - 70.07 Spare parts - - 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 7.40 38,601 2,234 40,835 5,518 37% 19% 42,368 80.01 Project Development 7,754 - 7,754 8,045 80.02 Engineering 8,500 - 8,500 8,819 80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 5,214 521 5,735 5,950 80.04 Construction Administration & Management 9,651 965 10,616 11,015 80.05 Professional Liability and other Non-Construction Insurance 4,652 465 5,117 5,309 80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc. 1,012 101 1,113 1,155 80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 1,818 182 2,000 2,075 80.08 Start up - - - - Subtotal (10 - 80) 7.40 183,683 15,029 198,712 26,853 93% 218,364 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 9,986 5% 11,341 Subtotal (10 - 90) 7.40 208,698 28,202 98% 229,705 100 FINANCE CHARGES 4,884 2% 5,612 Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 7.40 213,582 28,862 100% 235,317 Allocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 8.18% Unallocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 5.44% Total Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 13.62% Unallocated Contingency as % of Subtotal (10 - 80) 5.03% YOE Construction Cost per Mile (X000) 16,704 YOE Total Project Cost per Mile Not Including Vehicles (X000) 26,142 YOE Total Project Cost per Mile (X000) 31,800 I N F L A T I O N W O R K S H E E T (Rev.16, June, 2014)

Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Today's Date 6/6/06

City of Norfolk, VA Yr of Base Year $ 2006

Phase: PE Yr of Revenue Ops 2010

Insert comments, notes, etc.

Base Yr Double- BASE YEAR DOLLARS (X$000) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Dollars Check Total 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 51,958 52,001 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 25,610 26,391 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 5,205 5,176 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 3,463 1,712 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 15,390 15,408 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 6,645 8,763 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 12,499 13,062 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 4,341 8,554 167 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 SYSTEMS 25,585 25,998 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 1,642 19,527 4,829 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 10,461 10,034 0 0 0 0 0 - - 7,473 2,561 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 VEHICLES (number) 36,778 37,055 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 29,394 7,661 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 40,835 39,776 0 0 0 0 0 7,847 206 7,061 11,778 10,014 2,870 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 9,986 10,188 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 3,405 5,297 1,486 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 FINANCE CHARGES 4,884 4,884 0 0 0 0 0 - - 125 282 796 3,681 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 213,582 213,582 0 0 0 0 07,847 206 14,660 59,727 110,449 20,695 0 0 0 0 0 0

Inflation Rate 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.06250 0.06250 0.03875 0.03875 0.03875 0.03874 0.03874 0.03250 0.03250 0.03250 0.03250 0.03250 0.03250 Compounded Inflation Factor 0.8523 0.8523 0.8523 0.8523 0.9061 0.9627 1.0000 1.0388 1.0790 1.1208 1.1642 1.2021 1.2411 1.2815 1.3231 1.3661 1.4105

YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS (X$000) YOE Dollars 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 57,212 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 27,633 29,579 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 5,656 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 3,737 1,919 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 16,992 0 0 0 0 0 - - 7,170 9,822 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 14,466 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 4,684 9,587 195 0 0 0 0 0 50 SYSTEMS 29,280 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 1,772 21,886 5,622 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 10,526 0 0 0 0 0 - - 7,763 2,763 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 VEHICLES (number) 41,864 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - 32,945 8,919 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 42,368 0 0 0 0 0 7,554 206 7,335 12,708 11,224 3,341 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 11,341 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 3,674 5,937 1,730 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 FINANCE CHARGES 5,612 0 0 0 0 0 - - 130 304 892 4,286 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 235,317 0 0 0 0 07,554 206 15,228 64,445 123,791 24,093 0 0 0 0 0 0 M A I N W O R K S H E E T - B U I L D A L T E R N A T I V E (Rev.16, June, 2014)

Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Today's Date 10/1/07

City of Norfolk, VA Yr of Base Year $ 2006

Phase: PE Yr of Revenue Ops 2010

Quantity Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year YOE Dollars Total Dollars w/o Dollars Dollars Dollars Unit Dollars Dollars (X000) Percentage Percentage Contingency Allocated TOTAL Cost of of (X000) Contingency (X000) (X000) Construction Total (X000) Cost Project Cost 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 7.42 47,341 6,237 53,578 7,221 44% 24% 56,097 10.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way 4.61 4,382 657 5,039 1,093 5,276 10.02 Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic) 1.50 5,725 859 6,584 4,389 6,893 10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic - - 10.04 Guideway: Aerial structure 0.83 13,570 2,036 15,606 18,802 16,339 10.05 Guideway: Built-up fill - - 10.06 Guideway: Underground cut & cover - - 10.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel - - 10.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill 0.48 6,377 957 7,334 15,279 7,678 10.09 Track: Direct fixation 2,650 265 2,915 3,052 10.10 Track: Embedded 4,576 458 5,034 5,270 10.11 Track: Ballasted 8,758 876 9,634 10,087 10.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) 1,303 130 1,433 1,501 10.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening - - 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 11 4,627 694 5,322 484 4% 2% 5,669 20.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 10 3,498 525 4,023 402 4,285 20.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 1 970 145 1,115 1,115 1,188 20.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform - - - 20.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc. - - - 20.05 Joint development - - - 20.06 Automobile parking multi-story structure - - - 20.07 Elevators, escalators 160 24 184 196 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 7.42 14,662 2,129 16,791 2,263 14% 8% 17,620 30.01 Administration Building: Office, sales, storage, revenue counting - - 30.02 Light Maintenance Facility 7,657 1,149 8,806 9,240 30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility - - 30.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building - - 30.05 Yard and Yard Track 7,005 981 7,986 8,380 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 7.42 13,897 1,995 15,892 2,142 13% 7% 16,670 40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork 549 82 631 662 40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 6,283 942 7,225 7,579 40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments 1,320 132 1,452 1,523 40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks 474 47 521 547 40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls - - 40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping 205 31 236 248 40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots 5,066 760 5,826 6,111 40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction - - 50 SYSTEMS 7.42 26,870 3,891 30,761 4,146 25% 14% 32,503 50.01 Train control and signals 2,044 307 2,351 2,484 50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 4,008 601 4,609 4,870 50.03 Traction power supply: substations 8,252 1,238 9,490 10,027 50.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail 10,735 1,610 12,345 13,044 50.05 Communications 431 65 496 524 50.06 Fare collection system and equipment 1,400 70 1,470 1,553 50.07 Central Control 0 0 - - Construction Subtotal (10 - 50) 7.42 107,398 14,946 122,343 16,488 100% 55% 128,558 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 7.42 10,461 - 10,461 1,410 5% 10,714 60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate 10,160 10,160 10,406 60.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses 301 301 308 70 VEHICLES (number) 9 33,818 - 33,818 3,758 15% 36,015 70.01 Light Rail 9 33,818 33,818 3,758 36,015 70.02 Heavy Rail - - - 70.03 Commuter Rail - - - 70.04 Bus 0 - - - 70.05 Other - - - 70.06 Non-revenue vehicles - - - 70.07 Spare parts - - - 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 7.42 37,763 3,059 40,822 5,502 33% 18% 42,119 80.01 Project Development 8,754 8,754 9,032 80.02 Engineering 6,674 826 7,500 7,738 80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 5,182 518 5,700 5,881 80.04 Construction Administration & Management 9,273 927 10,200 10,524 80.05 Professional Liability and other Non-Construction Insurance 5,062 506 5,568 5,745 80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc. 1,000 100 1,100 1,135 80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection - - 80.08 Start up 1,818 182 2,000 2,064 Subtotal (10 - 80) 7.42 189,440 18,005 207,445 27,958 94% 217,405 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 10,244 5% 10,757 Subtotal (10 - 90) 7.42 217,689 29,338 98% 228,162 100 FINANCE CHARGES 3,637 2% 3,938 Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 7.42 221,325 29,828 100% 232,100 Allocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 9.50% Unallocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 5.41% Total Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 14.91% Unallocated Contingency as % of Subtotal (10 - 80) 4.94% YOE Construction Cost per Mile (X000) 17,326 YOE Total Project Cost per Mile Not Including Vehicles (X000) 26,427 YOE Total Project Cost per Mile (X000) 31,280 I N F L A T I O N W O R K S H E E T (Rev.9, Feb. 6, 2007)

Project Sponsor Name: Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Today's Date 5/21/07

Project Name and Location: City of Norfolk, VA Yr of Base Year $ 2007

Current Phase: Applic. For FFGA Yr of Revenue Ops 2010

Below, show all project costs in the year in which they occurred or are planned to occur through the completion of the project or the fulfillment of the New Starts funding commitment, whichever is expected to occur later in time. Base Yr Double- BASE YEAR DOLLARS (X$000) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Dollars Check Total 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 53,578 53,578 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 021,36429,194 3,020 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 5,322 5,322 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03,9481,374 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 16,791 16,791 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,10511,686 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 15,892 15,892 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,444 6,701 2,747 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 SYSTEMS 30,761 30,761 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,12216,026 7,613 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 10,461 10,461 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010,461 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 VEHICLES (number) 33,818 33,818 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 025,517 8,301 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 40,822 40,822 0 0 0 0 0 7,754 0 5,890 12,668 8,386 6,124 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 10,244 10,244 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,993 4,151 2,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 FINANCE CHARGES 3,637 3,637 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 957 1,667 900 0 0 0 0 0 Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 221,325 221,325 0 0 0 0 0 7,754 0 5,890 67,269106,566 32,946 900 0 0 0 0 0 Below insert estimated inflation rates for each year. For 2007 and beyond, the YOE dollars are calculated automatically. For 2006 and previous years, the Base Year dollars are automatically inflated to reflect the value of past expenditures in 2007 dollars. Inflation Rate 0.03000 0.03000 0.03000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.02419 0.03535 0.01754 0.03874 0.03874 0.03250 0.03250 0.03250 0.03250 0.03250 Compounded Inflation Factor 1.09273 1.06090 1.03000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.02419 1.06039 1.07899 1.12079 1.16421 1.20205 1.24111 1.28145 1.32310 YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS (X$000) YOE Dollars 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 56,097 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 021,88130,957 3,259 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 5,669 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04,1861,483 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 17,620 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05,22912,392 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 16,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06,6007,1062,964 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 SYSTEMS 32,503 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,29416,994 8,214 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 10,714 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010,714 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 VEHICLES (number) 36,015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 027,0588,957 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 42,119 0 0 0 0 0 7,754 0 5,890 12,974 8,892 6,608 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 10,757 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04,0904,4022,266 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 FINANCE CHARGES 3,938 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 1,015 1,799 1,009 0 0 0 0 0 Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 232,100 0 0 0 0 0 7,754 0 5,890 68,897 113,002 35,548 1,009 0 0 0 0 0 Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Categorization of Project Costs FFGA & Concurrent Non-FFGA

Bid Items CTC Estimated Original FFGA FFGA CNFA TOTAL Current CTC Contract November 2012 Contract 10 - Wetlands Mitigation Grandy Village $ 539,989.00 $ 536,129.78 $ - $ 536,129.78 $ 536,129.78 Contract 20 - Viaduct Brambleton $ 11,673,099.45 $ 15,053,844.12 $ 661,489.07 $ 15,715,333.19 $ 15,715,333.19 Contract 30 - NS ROW $ 31,501,026.47 $ - $ - $ - $ - Contract 40 - Downtown $ 36,134,927.88 $ 94,721,148.95 $ 3,444,950.68 $ 98,166,099.63 $ 98,166,099.63 Contract 07-46527A T1 - Noise and Vibration Monitoring $ - $ 286,246.40 $ - $ 286,246.40 $ 286,246.40 Contract 50653 - DNC Business Signage $ - $ 38,230.30 $ - $ 38,230.30 $ 38,230.30 Contract 60 - Traction Power $ 25,150,094.00 $ 24,873,167.26 $ 15,531,638.95 $ 40,404,806.21 $ 40,403,178.26 Contract 80 - Vehicle Storage Maintenance Facility $ 10,565,628.00 $ 11,596,993.14 $ 1,961,384.32 $ 13,558,377.46 $ 13,558,377.46 Contract 100 - Park & Rides $ 2,768,741.22 $ 4,161,962.25 $ 191,337.75 $ 4,353,300.00 $ 4,353,300.00 Contract 110 - Station Finishes $ 2,455,000.00 $ 2,670,295.10 $ 2,013,988.23 $ 4,684,283.33 $ 4,684,283.33 Contract 120 - Light Rail Vehicles $ 30,857,014.00 $ 36,016,517.76 $ - $ 36,016,517.76 $ 36,016,517.76 Contract 08-48116 - Fare Vending Equip. $ 1,553,000.00 $ 1,467,250.00 $ - $ 1,467,250.00 $ 1,467,250.00 Contract 08-48116 - Fare Vending Equip. (CNFA) Deleted 10/2012 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Contract 150 - Demolition $ 926,194.00 $ 1,512,315.00 $ - $ 1,512,315.00 $ 1,512,315.00 Contract 07-46527A T4 - Asbestos Project Montioring $ - $ 80,590.36 $ - $ 80,590.36 $ 80,590.36 Contract 160 - Construction of Temp Siding Track $ 48,750.00 $ 53,729.90 $ - $ 53,729.90 $ 53,729.90 Contract 180 - Temporary Shelter Purchase $ 49,697.00 $ 49,697.00 $ - $ 49,697.00 $ 49,697.00 Contract 230 - Temporary Shelter for LRVS $ 16,800.00 $ 18,650.00 $ - $ 18,650.00 $ 18,650.00 Contract 250 - VSMF Direct Current Power Distribution $ 99,403.77 $ 105,035.76 $ - $ 105,035.76 $ 105,035.76 Contract 260 - Temporary Spur Track Sewells Point $ 20,009.00 $ 20,009.00 $ 94,874.00 $ 114,883.00 $ 114,883.00 Contract 280 - IDIQ Overhead Structures $ - $ 364,457.94 $ 458,224.35 $ 822,682.29 $ 822,682.29 Contract 340 - IDIQ Systems Services $ - $ 36,060.00 $ - $ 36,060.00 $ 36,060.00 Contract 360 - IDIQ Railway Services Maintanence $ - $ 129,233.00 $ - $ 129,233.00 $ 129,233.00 Contract 1000 - Landscaping $ - $ 479,149.21 $ - $ 479,149.21 $ 479,149.00 Contract 2000 - Drainage under I-264 $ - $ 645,111.43 $ 190,782.20 $ 835,893.63 $ 835,894.00 Purchase or Lease of Real Estate $ 10,406,000.00 $ 15,157,193.00 $ - $ 15,157,193.00 $ 15,157,193.00 Relocate Households & Businesses $ 308,000.00 $ 788,307.00 $ - $ 788,307.00 $ 788,307.00 Utilities $ - $ 3,539,074.96 $ - $ 3,539,074.96 $ 3,539,075.00 Insurance (OCIP) $ 5,745,000.00 $ 7,703,809.00 $ - $ 7,703,809.00 $ 7,975,637.00 Preliminary Engineering $ 9,032,000.00 $ 8,754,000.00 $ - $ 8,754,000.00 $ 8,754,000.00 Final Design $ 7,738,000.00 $ 13,489,097.88 $ 3,834,065.26 $ 17,323,163.14 $ 17,323,163.14 Project Management $ 5,881,000.00 $ 11,418,601.00 $ 3,691,734.00 $ 15,110,335.00 $ 15,110,335.00 Project Support $ - $ 189,807.72 $ 126,538.48 $ 316,346.20 $ 316,346.20 Project Office Costs $ - $ 583,798.52 $ 389,199.02 $ 972,997.54 $ 972,997.54 HRT Project Management and Administration $ - $ 2,083,068.47 $ 1,388,712.31 $ 3,471,780.78 $ 3,471,780.79 HRT Public Involvement $ - $ 581,340.56 $ 387,560.38 $ 968,900.94 $ 968,900.94

Construction Management (includes Construction Project Support) $ 10,524,000.00 $ 11,686,323.00 $ 774,882.00 $ 12,461,205.00 $ 12,461,205.00 Professional Services AECOM $ - $ 818,237.00 $ - $ 818,237.00 $ 818,237.00 Professional Services - "After" Study $ - $ 706,560.00 $ - $ 706,560.00 $ 839,725.31 Legal Fees and Permits $ 1,135,000.00 $ 421,318.00 $ - $ 421,318.00 $ 421,318.00 Start-Up and Pre-Revenue Operations $ - Parts and Materials $ 313,600.00 $ 1,394,113.53 $ - $ 1,394,113.53 $ 1,394,113.53 Rail Lubricators $ - $ 446,926.20 $ - $ 446,926.20 $ 446,926.20 Rail Personnel Training $ 257,440.00 $ 276,907.10 $ - $ 276,907.10 $ 276,907.10 Project Support $ - $ 521,483.59 $ - $ 521,483.59 $ 521,483.59 General Liability Insurance $ 200,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - PR/Grand Opening $ 100,000.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - LRV Security $ 129,000.00 $ 363,874.28 $ - $ 363,874.28 $ 363,874.28 Energy and Utilities $ - $ 204,381.88 $ - $ 204,381.88 $ 204,381.88 Rail Operarions Staff $ 1,192,960.00 $ 4,164,375.16 $ - $ 4,164,375.16 $ 4,164,375.16 Bus Training and Pre Revenue Testing $ - $ 2,363.00 $ - $ 2,363.00 $ 2,363.00 Finance Charges $ 3,937,000.00 $ 51,987.00 $ - $ 51,987.00 $ - Contingency $ 10,757,000.00 $ 3,494,418.00 $ - $ 3,494,418.00 $ - Total $ 222,015,373.79 $ 283,757,189.52 $ 35,141,360.99 $ 318,898,550.51 $ 315,755,511.08 M A I N W O R K S H E E T - B U I L D A L T E R N A T I V E (Rev.16, June, 2014)

Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Today's Date 1/14/08

City of Norfolk, VA Yr of Base Year $ 2008

Phase: Construction Yr of Revenue Ops 2011

Quantity Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year Base Year YOE Dollars Total Dollars w/o Dollars Dollars Dollars Unit Dollars Dollars (X000) Percentage Percentage Contingency Allocated TOTAL Cost of of (X000) Contingency (X000) (X000) Construction Total (X000) Cost Project Cost 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 7.40 83,744 - 83,744 11,317 45% 27% 83,744 10.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way 4.90 28,675 28,675 5,852 28,675 10.02 Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic) 1.50 11 11 7 11 10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic (13) (13) (13) 10.04 Guideway: Aerial structure 0.60 25,571 25,571 42,618 25,571 10.05 Guideway: Built-up fill 123 123 123 10.06 Guideway: Underground cut & cover - - - 10.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel - - - 10.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill 0.40 5,220 5,220 13,050 5,220 10.09 Track: Direct fixation 7,431 7,431 7,431 10.10 Track: Embedded 9,221 9,221 9,221 10.11 Track: Ballasted 3,943 3,943 3,943 10.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) 2,977 2,977 2,977 10.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening 585 585 585 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 11 1,005 - 1,005 91 1% 0% 1,005 20.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 10 179 179 18 179 20.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 1 66 66 66 66 20.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform - - - 20.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc. 71 71 71 20.05 Joint development - - - 20.06 Automobile parking multi-story structure - - - 20.07 Elevators, escalators 689 689 689 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 7.40 12,354 - 12,354 1,669 7% 4% 12,354 30.01 Administration Building: Office, sales, storage, revenue counting 42 42 42 30.02 Light Maintenance Facility 9,826 9,826 9,826 30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility - - - 30.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building 50 50 50 30.05 Yard and Yard Track 2,436 2,436 2,436 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 7.40 56,203 - 56,203 7,595 30% 18% 56,203 40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork 7,760 7,760 7,760 40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 15,516 15,516 15,516 40.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments 877 877 877 40.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks 2,123 2,123 2,123 40.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls 3,602 3,602 3,602 40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping 5,047 5,047 5,047 40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots 5,507 5,507 5,507 40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction 15,771 15,771 15,771 50 SYSTEMS 7.40 34,523 - 34,523 4,665 18% 11% 34,523 50.01 Train control and signals 9,690 9,690 9,690 50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 9,713 9,713 9,713 50.03 Traction power supply: substations 554 554 554 50.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail 13,924 13,924 13,924 50.05 Communications 642 642 642 50.06 Fare collection system and equipment - - - 50.07 Central Control - - - Construction Subtotal (10 - 50) 7.40 187,829 - 187,829 25,382 100% 60% 187,829 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 7.40 15,945 - 15,945 2,155 5% 15,945 60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate 15,157 15,157 15,157 60.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses 788 788 788 70 VEHICLES (number) 10 36,067 - 36,067 3,607 11% 36,067 70.01 Light Rail 9 36,067 36,067 4,007 36,067 70.02 Heavy Rail - - - 70.03 Commuter Rail - - - 70.04 Bus 1 - - - - 70.05 Other - - - 70.06 Non-revenue vehicles - - - 70.07 Spare parts - - - 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 7.40 74,681 - 74,681 10,092 40% 24% 74,681 80.01 Project Development 8,754 8,754 8,754 80.02 Engineering 17,323 17,323 17,323 80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction - - - 80.04 Construction Administration & Management 34,960 34,960 34,960 80.05 Professional Liability and other Non-Construction Insurance 5,753 5,753 5,753 80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc. 421 421 421 80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection - - - 80.08 Start up 7,470 7,470 7,470 Subtotal (10 - 80) 7.40 314,522 - 314,522 42,503 100% 314,522 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY - 0% - Subtotal (10 - 90) 7.40 314,522 42,503 100% 314,522 100 FINANCE CHARGES 52 0% 52 Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 7.40 314,574 42,510 100% 314,574 Allocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 0.00% Unallocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 0.00% Total Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 0.00% Unallocated Contingency as % of Subtotal (10 - 80) 0.00% YOE Construction Cost per Mile (X000) 25,382 YOE Total Project Cost per Mile Not Including Vehicles (X000) 37,636 YOE Total Project Cost per Mile (X000) 42,510 I N F L A T I O N W O R K S H E E T (Rev.16, June, 2014)

Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Today's Date 1/14/08

City of Norfolk, VA Yr of Base Year $ 2008

Phase: Construction Yr of Revenue Ops 2011

Insert comments, notes, etc.

Base Yr Double- BASE YEAR DOLLARS (X$000) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Dollars Check Total 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 83,744 83,744 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,887 20,936 20,936 20,936 10,049 0 0 0 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 1,005 1,005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 241 241 241 241 40 0 0 0 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 12,354 12,354 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,853 4,324 4,324 1,853 0 0 0 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 56,203 56,203 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,481 16,861 16,861 0 0 0 50 SYSTEMS 34,523 34,523 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,726 5,178 8,631 8,631 8,631 1,726 0 0 0 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 15,945 15,945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,348 3,348 3,348 3,348 2,551 0 0 0 70 VEHICLES (number) 36,067 36,067 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,574 7,574 7,574 7,574 5,771 0 0 0 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 74,681 74,681 0 0 0 3,734 3,734 3,734 3,734 7,468 14,936 11,202 11,202 11,202 2,987 373 373 0 0 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 100 FINANCE CHARGES 52 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 314,574 314,574 0 0 0 3,734 3,734 3,734 3,734 7,468 40,618 75,285 73,117 70,647 30,029 2,100 373 0 0

Inflation Rate 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Compounded Inflation Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARS (X$000) YOE Dollars 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 83,744 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,887 20,936 20,936 20,936 10,049 - 0 0 0 20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 1,005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 241 241 241 241 40 - 0 0 0 30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 12,354 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,853 4,324 4,324 1,853 - - 0 0 0 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 56,203 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 22,481 16,861 16,861 - - 0 0 0 50 SYSTEMS 34,523 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,726 5,178 8,631 8,631 8,631 1,726 0 0 0 60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 15,945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,348 3,348 3,348 3,348 2,551 - 0 0 0 70 VEHICLES (number) 36,067 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,574 7,574 7,574 7,574 5,771 - 0 0 0 80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 74,681 0 0 0 3,734 3,734 3,734 3,734 7,468 14,936 11,202 11,202 11,202 2,987 373 373 0 0 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------0 0 0 100 FINANCE CHARGES 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 - - - - - 0 0 0 Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 314,574 0 0 0 3,734 3,734 3,734 3,734 7,468 40,618 75,285 73,117 70,647 30,029 2,100 373 0 0

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

Appendix C: Service Levels

Hampton Roads Transit Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project Service Levels

Introduction Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) is the regional provider of public transportation for the Southside and Peninsula areas of the Hampton Roads metropolitan area, which consists of the cities of Norfolk, Hampton, Newport News, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, and Virginia Beach. HRT was formed with the merger of the South Hampton Roads transit provider (Tidewater Regional Transit, TRT) and the north side operator (Peninsula Transit, Pentran). The HRT service area covers more than 515 square miles with a population of nearly 1.439 million.

The purpose of this technical memorandum (tech memo) is (1) to document actual service levels provided by the Tide, HRT’s first light rail transit (LRT) line, as well as bus routes in the Tide corridor and (2) to examine the consistency of service plans prepared for each project-development milestone with those outcomes. HRT’s governing body, the Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads, was awarded a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) on October 1, 2007 by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) under its New Starts program in the amount of $127,980,000. This tech memo provides documentation of the project’s service characteristics as operated two years after implementation of the light rail and as predicted at three key milestones in the planning process. The report will also examine the consistency of the planned service levels at the milestones with the actual outcomes. The documentation provided in this tech memo will be summarized in the project’s Before and After Study, an FTA-required study for projects receiving New Starts funding.

The Tide revenue service began on August 29, 2011. The route starts just west of Downtown Norfolk, at the Eastern Virginia Medical Center (EVMC)/Fort Norfolk Station. It extends east, through Downtown Norfolk and along the north side of the eastern branch of the Elizabeth River, ending at the Newtown Road Station at Newtown Road and Kempsville Road.

HRT also operates bus, ferry, and paratransit service. The HRT bus network includes over 40 locations for timed transfer connections to other routes. Bus service within The Tide project corridor includes routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 44 45, 918, 919, 922, 960, 961, 962, and 967.

This report will focus on how the Tide and the bus system operated approximately two years after implementation of the light rail line. Service conditions approximately two years before implementation of the light rail will also be documented, and the changes in service levels from the Before period to the After period will be discussed. The following dates are used to assess the before and after conditions: • Before conditions are represented by August 2009 service levels. • After conditions are represented by August 2013 service levels. These are the same levels of service in effect at the time of this report and are also referred to as “actual” service levels in comparison with predicted levels.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 1

The Tide Light Rail Project

In addition, this report will examine the accuracy of service level predictions at three key milestones: • Entry into PE (November 2002), • Entry into Final Design (September 2006), and • FFGA (October 2007).

The comparison of transit services across milestone dates will be focused geographically on routes which occur inside The Tide service corridor, defined as south of Princess Anne Road and Virginia Beach Boulevard, north and east of the Elizabeth River, extending just beyond the Norfolk city limits to the east. This area is depicted in yellow in Figure 1. In addition, summary-level tables will describe the broader changes for the Southside bus system, and the HRT system as a whole.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 2 The Tide Light Rail Project

Figure 1: 2013 HRT System Map, the Tide LRT Service Area

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 3

The Tide Light Rail Project

After Service Conditions (August 2013) The Tide LRT Service The Tide extends 7.4 miles from the EVMC complex east through downtown Norfolk to Newtown Road at the border of Virginia Beach, as shown in Figures 1 and Figure 2. The Tide makes stops at 11 stations. Four of these, the Harbor Park, Ballentine/Broad Creek, Military Highway, and Newton Road stations, feature park-and-ride lots. The EVMC/Fort Norfolk, York Street/Freemason, Monticello, Civic Plaza, NSU (Norfolk State University), Ballentine/Broad Creek, Military Highway, and Newton Road Stations also serve as points of transfer to corridor bus routes. The MacArthur Square and Ingleside Road Stations serve walk-up traffic only.

Figure 2: 2013 The Tide LRT Stations

The Tide operates with 10-minute headways during weekday peak periods (approximately 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) and 15-minute to 30-minute headways during the off peak and on weekends, as described in Table 1.

Table 1 The Tide Service Spans and Headways, 2013 Early Morning Late Night Service Span of Service Peak Off-Peak (Before 6:30 am, or (after 10:00 pm) 9:00 am Sat.) Monday-Thursday 6:00 AM-11:00 PM 10 min. 15 min. 15 min. 30 min. Friday 6:00 AM-12:00 AM 10 min 15 min. 15 min. 30 min. Saturday 6:00 AM-12:00 AM N/A 15 min. 30 min. 30 min. Sunday 11:00 AM-9:00 PM N/A 15 min. N/A N/A

The one-way travel time from the EVMC Station to the Newtown Road Station is approximately 26 minutes. The total round trip running time is one hour with layovers and requires six one-car train consists during peak periods. The 2013 system utilizes a total fleet of nine one-car electric light rail vehicles which includes three spares.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 4

The Tide Light Rail Project

On an average weekday, The Tide operates a total of 90 revenue hours covering 1,158 revenue miles. As shown in Table 2, approximately 79% of those hours are spent in-service with 21% as layover. The Tide travels with an average speed of approximately 16.3 mph, not including layovers. Annually1, HRT provides a total of 29,249 revenue hours and 377,097 revenue miles of LRT service.

Table 2 The Tide Service Characteristics, 2013 Weekday Vehicle Statistics Weekday Weekday Average Speed Percent Train Hours Train Miles (mph) In-service 71 78.52% 1,158 16.32 Layover 19 21.22 % ------Deadhead 0 ------Pull-in/out 0.25 0.26% 0.0 0.0 Total 90 100% 1,158 16.27 Revenue Service Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Weekday 90 1,158 Saturday 77 894 Sunday 38 603 Annual 29,249 377,097

Bus Service Table 3 summarizes 2013 bus service within The Tide corridor, as well as for the overall network of routes operating in the Southside (Tidewater) area of the HRT system. As shown, the majority of Southside System routes provide some service within the Tide corridor, connecting this key area with the larger system.

Table 3 Summary of Bus Service Characteristics, 2013 Weekday Saturday Sunday Corridor Local Routes 21 20 14 Corridor System Max Routes 6 2 2 Corridor Revenue Miles 14,991 11,720 5,395 Corridor Revenue Hours 1,276 990 445 Southside Local Routes 38 37 22 Southside Max Routes 7 2 2 Southside Revenue Miles 20,946 17,312 7,065 Southside Revenue Hours 1,815 1,448 659

Local routes 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 44, and 45 and MAX routes 960, 961, and 967 directly serve the Tide LRT stations. The majority of these operate in a primarily north/south

1 Revenue hours and miles were annualized based on an assumption of 253 regular/weekday schedules, 57 Saturday schedules and 55 Sunday schedules operated in 2013.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 5

The Tide Light Rail Project

direction, feeding into the nearest rail stations for east/west connections. Routes 20 and 23 provide service that more closely parallels the Tide alignment along Virginia Beach Boulevard and Princess Anne Road, respectively, and tie back into the LRT line near the termini. Two local routes, 4 and 11, serve the Downtown Norfolk Transit Center which is approximately three blocks east of the Monticello Station and four blocks north of the Civic Plaza Station. Although located inside the Tide service area these routes do not directly serve LRT stations without a short walk or transfer. MAX Express Routes 918, 919, and 922 operate through the corridor along I-64 and I-264, but do not make stops or provide additional service within the corridor.

Before Service Characteristics (August 2009) Table 4 summarizes the HRT Southside bus routes, as well as bus routes specific to the Tide Corridor, two years after the implementation of the Tide. Nearly half of Southside local routes and the majority of MAX routes operate within the Tide LRT corridor. These routes account for approximately 68% of the Southside’s overall annual revenue hours, and 72% of the Southside total revenue miles.

Table 4 Summary of Bus Service Characteristics, 2009 Weekday Saturday Sunday Corridor Local Routes 18 13 12 Corridor System Max Routes 6 2 2 Corridor Revenue Miles 16,390 11,354 5,201 Corridor Revenue Hours 1,256 926 404 Southside System Local Routes 39 33 20 Southside System Max Routes 7 2 2 Southside Revenue Miles 22,686 16,847 7,094 Southside Revenue Hours 1,840 1,427 637

Comparison of Before and After System Operating Characteristics Change in Bus Service from 2009 to 2013 Between 2009 and 2013 eight local routes and two express routes were eliminated from the Southside bus system. Only one of these, MAX Route 962, was located within the Tide corridor. Six local routes and one express route were added to the Southside bus system. Three of these, Routes 16, 22, and 28 provide additional service within the Tide LRT corridor, serving the Newtown Road and/or EVMC/Fort Norfolk Stations.

Most changes within the corridor were schedule or alignment adjustments to existing routes, as described in Table 5. Although regular service updates occur one to two times per year at HRT, major service changes were implemented at two key periods of time between 2009 and 2013.

• August 2011 Service Changes – Introduction of LRT: A total of 21 service changes were implemented in August 2011 and were focused on incorporating the LRT line into the system. Bus routes in the LRT corridor were adjusted to provide direct connections to LRT stations. In addition, the spans of service for some connecting routes were extended to provide equal service hours for bus and rail to improve connections between the modes.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 6

The Tide Light Rail Project

• January 2012 Service Changes – Service and Schedule Efficiency Study Recommendations: The focus of the service change recommendations from the Service and Schedule Efficiency Study was to reallocate financial resources from low performing routes (or trips within a routes’ service day) to higher performing routes and trips. In addition, the study provided guidance to improve cost efficiency without having to increase fares. A total of 40 bus routes (17 routes in the north and 23 routes in the south) were changed by either eliminating trips or reducing the frequency of the service. Recommendations were based on minimum passenger boarding thresholds for bus routes. Routes averaging less than 10 boardings per trip were defined as underperforming routes and would either be discontinued or modified to eliminate low performing trips during the fringes of the service day. Nearly 660 daily bus trips were eliminated systemwide as a result of the study analysis.

HRT made these significant changes to the system to improve the bus and rail interface and connections and to make overall improvements to service productivity and cost efficiencies. Although the focus of this report is to detail the changes to the bus service as a result of the introduction of the Tide, other service changes during the time period from 2009 to 2013 will also be catalogued to provide a comprehensive understanding of service levels. Both service changes seemed effective overall and improved system performance. Table 5 provides a detailed comparison of the change in service characteristics between 2009 and 2013.

Bus Service Changes Occurring at the Introduction of LRT Route 16 was added in 2011 with the introduction of the Tide LRT. It provides service between the EVMC/Fort Norfolk Station and Powhatan Avenue (Old Dominion University). The service ran every 30 minutes, Monday through Saturday.

In addition, a total of 17 existing routes within the Tide LRT corridor were modified in 2011 in conjunction with the opening of the LRT line. Local routes 2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27, 44, and 45 and MAX routes 960, 961, and 967 were adapted to connect to LRT stations. Many of these routes also experienced adjustments to frequencies and extended service hours to match The Tide’s revenue hours of operation, as shown in Table 5. Routes 25 and 27 increased their span of service by six hours or more.

Bus Service Changes Resulting from the Service Efficiency Study The 2012 service efficiency study prompted the realignment of Route 17 to serve the Civic Plaza Station as well as several minor schedule and frequency adjustments. Routes 4, 6, 11, 17, and 31 and MAX Route 960 were less frequent in 2013 than they had been in 2009. Routes 3 and 27 operated more frequently than before implementation of The Tide service. Routes 1, 4, 15, 45, and MAX Route 960 underwent a reduction in span of service of approximately one to two hours. Many of the other changes associated with the service efficiency study occurred on routes outside of the LRT corridor.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 7 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 5 Comparison of Corridor Bus Service Characteristics (2009 and 2013)

2009 (Before) 2013 (After) Headways Span of Service Headways Span of Service

Route Peak Base Sat, Sun (Weekday) Peak Base Sat, Sun (Weekday) Year, Alignment Changes

Local Routes 1 15 30 30/60, 60 4:45 AM-2:15 AM 15 30 30/60, 60 4:45 AM-12:45 AM 2013, slight route adjustment to Granby St. corridor to service Monticello Station and new Downtown Norfolk Transit Center (DNTC) 2 30 30 30/45, 60 5:00 AM-1:00 AM 30 30 60 5:00 AM-1:45 AM 2011, slight route adjustment to Hampton Blvd. corridor to service Ft. Norfolk Station. 2013, slight modification to serve DNTC 3 30 30 30/60, 60 5:00 AM-1:30 AM 15 30 30/60, 60 5:00 AM-1:45 AM 2013, slight route adjustment to Chesapeake Blvd. corridor to service Monticello Station and DNTC 4 60 60 60 4:45 AM-7:45 PM 70 70 70 6:00 AM-6:45 PM 2013, Church St./21st St. corridor was slightly modified to serve new DNTC 6 30 30 30/60, NS 5:15 AM-12:45 AM 30 60 60 5:30 AM-12:45 AM 2011, slight route adjustment to service Civic Plaza station.2013, slight modification to serve DNTC 8 30 30 60, 90 5:15 AM-12:45 AM 30 30 30/60, 60 5:15 AM-1:15 AM 2011, slight route alignment to Tidewater Dr. corridor to service Civic Plaza Station. 2013, slight modification to serve DNTC 9 30 30 30/60, NS 5:15 AM-10:15 PM 30 30 60, NS 5:45 AM-12:15 AM 2011, adjustment made to Sewells Pt. Rd. corridor to service the NSU station. 2013, slight modification to serve DNTC 11 30 30 30/60, 60 5:45 AM-6:45 PM 60 60 60 6:00 AM-6:30 PM 2013, Colonial Rd. corridor was slightly modified to serve DNTC 13 30 30 30/60, 60 4:45 AM-12:45 AM 30 30/60 60 4:45 AM-12:45 AM 2011, adjustment made to Campostella Rd. corridor to service the NSU Station. 2013, slight modification to serve DNTC 15 15 30 30/60, 60 4:45 AM-2:00 AM 15 30 30/60, 60 4:45 AM-1:15 AM 2011, the Military Hwy. corridor was slightly modified to service the Military Hwy. Station. 16 N/A N/A N/A N/A 30 30 30/60, 60 6:00 AM-12:30 AM 2011, new Colley Ave. corridor was implemented to service the Ft. Norfolk Station 2011, the Granby St. corridor was modified to serve the Ft. Norfolk Station. 2012, realigned to provide service to Civic Plaza station. 17 6/9 15 15 6:00 AM-11:15 PM 15 15/30 30 6:00 AM-12:45 AM 2013, slight modification to serve DNTC 2011, the Ballentine Blvd. corridor began serving the Ballentine/Broad Creek Station (no alignment modification needed). 18 60 60 60, NS 4:45 AM-7:15 PM 60 60 60, NS 5:45 AM-10:45 PM 2013, slight modification to serve DNTC 20 15 30 30/60, 60 4:45 AM-1:15 AM 15 30 30/60, 60 5:00 AM-1:15 AM 2011, the Virginia Beach Blvd. corridor was realigned to service the Newtown Rd. Station. 2013, slight modification to serve DNTC 2012, New Newtown Rd./S. Independence corridor was implemented to provide service from Newton Road Station to previously 22 N/A N/A N/A N/A 60 60 60, NS 6:00 AM-7:00 PM unserved community 23 30 30 30/60, 60 5:00 AM-12:30 AM 30 30 30/60, 60 5:00 AM-1:30 AM 2011, Princess Anne Rd. Corridor was modified to service Ft. Norfolk and Military Hwy. stations. 25 30 30 NS 6:00 AM-6:45 PM 60 60 60, NS 6:00 AM-12:45 AM 2011, the Princess Anne Corridor was modified to serve Newtown Rd. Station. 2013, Saturday service was added. 27 60 60 60, NS 6:15 AM-7:00 PM 30 60 60, NS 5:45 AM-1:00 AM 2011, the Newtown Rd. corridor was modified to service the Newtown Rd. Station 28 N/A N/A N/A N/A 30 NS NS 6:00 AM-6:45 PM 2012, New Virginia Beach corridor implemented to provide limited stop service from Newtown Rd. Station to 19th St./Pacific Ave. 44 60 60 60, NS 6:00 AM-7:00 PM 60 60 60, NS 6:00 AM-7:45 PM 2011, Midtown corridor was modified to provide service to the EVMC/Ft. Norfolk Station. 2013, slight modification to serve DNTC 30/75, 2011, the Portsmouth Blvd. corridor was modified to provide service to the Civic Plaza Station. 45 30 30 60/90 4:30 AM-12:45 AM 30 30 30/60, 60 4:45 AM-12:00 AM 2013, slight modification to serve DNTC Express Routes 918 Varies NS NS N/A Varies NS NS 5:45 AM-5:00 PM* No alignment changes within LRT corridor (some alignment adjustments made at Norfolk Naval Air Station) 919 Varies NS NS 5:15 AM-5:15 PM* Varies NS NS 5:00 AM-5:00 PM* No alignment changes within LRT corridor (some alignment adjustments made at Norfolk Naval Air Station) 922 Varies NS NS 5:15 AM-5:30 PM* Varies NS NS 5:00 AM-5:15 PM* No alignment changes within LRT corridor (some alignment adjustments made at Norfolk Naval Air Station) 960 30 30 60 5:00 AM-8:45 PM 60 60 60 5:30 AM-8:15 PM 2011, the route was modified to provide service to Civic Plaza Station. 2013, slight modification to serve DNTC 961 30 30/60 30/60, 60 5:00 AM-10:15 PM 30 30/60 30/60 5:00 AM-10:15 PM 2011, the route was modified to provide service to Civic Plaza Station. 2013, slight modification to serve DNTC 962 30 30 NS 5:00 AM-8:15 PM N/A N/A N/A N/A 2011, service reduction with Suffolk's withdrawal from HRT. 2012, service eliminated. 967 N/A N/A N/A 5:00 AM-7:45 PM* Varies NS NS 4:45 AM-6:45 PM* 2011, modified to provide service to Military Hwy Station. *Route does not provide midday service.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 8 The Tide Light Rail Project

Other Bus Service Changes Route 22 was created in 2012 at the request of the city of Virginia Beach in order to serve a community that had no local bus service, as well as serving a new major city recreational center in that community. This route extends northeast from the Newton Road Terminal Station.

Route 28 was created at the request of the city of Virginia Beach in order to implement a skip stop, express service along Virginia Beach Boulevard in order to save commuters approximately 45 minutes between Oceanfront to downtown Norfolk. This route added an extension of transit services due east from the Newton Road Terminal Station.

MAX Route 962, which in 2009 provided service from the Magnolia Park & Ride Station to the Cedar Grove transfer station in downtown Norfolk, was modified in 2010 to serve from downtown Suffolk to the County/Court Transfer center in Portsmouth. This route was eliminated in 2012 when the city of Suffolk dropped out of the HRT system.

On July 7, 2013, local routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 18, 20, 44, and 45 and MAX routes 960 and 961 were modified to move from the old transfer center at Cedar Grove to the Downtown Norfolk Transit Center (DNTC) on Wood Street, between Church Street and Saint Paul’s Boulevard. In addition, Route 3 was modified to serve the Monticello Station as a result of 2013 service adjustments.

Operating Statistics Comparison of Corridor Routes Table 6 and Table 7 (on the following pages) show a route-by-route comparison between 2009 and 2013 for annual revenue hours and miles (respectively). Total revenue hours for the Southside System decreased, largely due to the elimination of several routes including service to and around the City of Suffolk. Within the Tide LRT corridor however, revenue hours increased by approximately 10,000 hours or 2.5 percent. This trend is predominantly driven by an increase in span of service for routes with direct connections to the LRT line. Revenue miles have decreased both within and beyond the LRT corridor. Outside the corridor, this is driven by the same reduction in service to Suffolk. Inside the corridor, this results from the splitting of routes with previous schedule adherence issues.

System-level Comparison Table 8 provides a system-wide comparison of service levels in 2009 and 2013. Bus revenue hours and peak-hour vehicles in operation have remained relatively constant between 2009 and 2013. As the Tide is HRT’s first LRT line, the increase in train hours and train vehicles accounts for the entirety of the 2013 LRT system. Ferry Service has remained fairly consistent between 2009 and 2013.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 9 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 6 Comparison of 2009 and 2013 Corridor Revenue Hours Route 2009 Daily Revenue Hours 2009 2013 Daily Revenue Hours 2013 Percent Number Weekday Saturday Sunday Total* Weekday Saturday Sunday Total* Change 1 93.1 78.7 39.2 30,277 118.9 77.6 37.8 36,579 20.8% 2 53.5 50.7 26.9 17,963 61.5 39.4 36.1 19,793 10.2% 3 82.5 80.2 39.4 27,691 90.5 70.4 35.4 28,843 4.2% 4 28.5 28.5 22.3 10,091 13.7 11.8 10.3 4,707 -53.4% 6 46.2 41.9 NS 14,114 41.0 32.2 12.8 12,903 -8.6% 8 60.3 32.5 15.0 17,962 52.5 50.7 26.6 17,629 -1.9% 9 57.9 58.1 NS 18,008 60.6 36.9 NS 17,433 -3.2% 11 25.8 25.7 10.4 8,586 12.4 12.5 9.0 4,337 -49.5% 13 61.0 61.0 18.9 20,009 40.0 32.5 16.7 12,897 -35.5% 15 132.8 101.7 51.8 42,356 105.7 77.7 30.9 32,878 -22.4% New 16 NS NS NS NS 32.7 33.7 16.9 11,115 Service 17 64.3 24.0 16.0 18,527 31.5 18.3 16.3 9,904 -46.5% 18 16.3 16.1 NS 5,048 19.4 16.0 NS 5,814 15.2% 20 149.0 94.0 69.1 46,957 177.4 132.4 68.8 56,221 19.7% New 22 NS NS NS NS 25.6 24.5 NS 7,868 Service 23 64.8 64.9 24.7 21,523 87.6 87.1 42.2 29,448 36.8% 25 25.6 NS NS 6,469 36.7 36.6 NS 11,367 75.7% 27 12.6 12.4 NS 3,911 24.0 19.1 NS 7,158 83.0% New 28 NS NS NS NS 18.2 NS NS 4,612 Service 44 36.4 36.2 NS 11,307 38.3 38.1 NS 11,859 4.9% 45 62.3 48.9 16.7 19,522 65.1 65.1 31.4 21,910 12.2% New 918 NS NS NS NS 2.4 NS NS 607 Service 919 12.2 NS NS 3,074 10.1 NS NS 2,560 -17.3% 922 10.6 NS NS 2,678 10.6 NS NS 2,673 -0.1% 960 44.5 27.5 25.5 14,222 29.3 27.4 26.1 10,412 -27.9% 961 53.2 43.6 27.8 17,506 58.1 49.8 27.8 19,069 8.9% Eliminated 962 42.5 NS NS 10,744 NS NS NS NS Service 967 20.9 NS NS 5,275 12.5 NS NS 3,150 -34.7% Corridor 317,878 53,742 22,201 393,821 322,863 56,411 24,473 403,747 2.5% Total* Southside System 465,533 82,781 35,049 583,363 459,280 84,788 36,223 580,291 -0.5% TOTAL* *Based on 253 weekdays, 58 Saturdays, and 55 Sundays in 2009; and 253 weekdays, 57 Saturdays, and 55 Sundays in 2013. Source: HRT

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 10 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 7 Comparison of 2009 and 2013 Corridor Revenue Miles Route 2009 Daily Revenue Miles 2009 2013 Daily Revenue Miles 2013 Percent Number Weekday Saturday Sunday Total* Weekday Saturday Sunday Total* Change 1 1182.8 970.4 480.0 381,942 1266.3 997.5 483.6 403,828 5.7% 2 601.7 676.4 363.1 211,431 664.1 466.7 429.2 218,219 3.2% 3 820.8 800.4 447.0 278,670 1008.9 833.9 422.5 326,019 17.0% 4 264.5 264.5 205.4 93,560 132.4 110.4 99.3 45,261 -51.6% 6 412.2 400.9 NS 127,531 383.9 323.1 131.6 122,785 -3.7% 8 649.3 338.4 188.9 194,283 557.5 540.0 232.8 184,622 -5.0% 9 682.7 682.7 NS 212,307 693.9 404.8 NS 198,625 -6.4% 11 165.3 165.3 66.9 55,081 89.2 89.2 64.2 31,182 -43.4% 13 720.3 720.3 163.0 232,986 379.3 307.7 150.7 121,783 -47.7% 15 1620.6 1246.2 636.3 517,294 1217.0 935.4 371.3 381,630 -26.2% 16 NS NS NS NS 299.6 299.6 159.3 101,628 New Route 17 497.7 163.5 113.9 141,661 160.4 92.7 82.7 50,419 -64.4% 18 171.0 171.0 NS 53,191 187.8 176.7 NS 57,583 8.3% 20 1649.8 1166.8 879.0 533,416 1869.3 1497.9 828.9 603,897 13.2% 22 NS NS NS NS 308.7 296.3 NS 94,998 New Route 23 749.5 749.5 284.0 248,710 779.6 764.5 328.9 258,917 4.1% 25 360.3 NS NS 91,146 514.0 514.0 NS 159,338 74.8% 27 204.2 204.2 NS 63,505 362.6 293.1 NS 108,433 70.7% 28 NS NS NS NS 279.4 NS NS 70,679 New Route 44 408.6 408.6 NS 127,083 405.3 405.3 NS 125,655 -1.1% 45 675.4 661.2 209.0 220,710 647.9 649.3 313.3 218,154 -1.2% 918 NS NS NS NS 60.0 NS NS 15,186 New Route 919 315.2 NS NS 79,756 263.5 NS NS 66,669 -16.4% 922 263.4 NS NS 66,644 264.8 NS NS 66,989 0.5% 960 956.1 582.4 541.1 305,432 659.0 614.7 591.4 234,283 -23.3% 961 1135.2 981.1 624.3 378,444 1145.5 1107.5 704.7 391,691 3.5% Removed 962 1095.2 NS NS 277,084 NS NS NS NS Route 967 789.1 NS NS 199,651 391.8 NS NS 99,135 -50.3% Corridor 4,146,897 658,521 286,099 5,091,517 3,792,840 668,068 296,700 4,757,608 -6.6% Total* TOTAL* 5,739,517 977,123 390,160 7,106,800 5,299,290 986,801 388,582 6,674,672 -6.1% *Based on 253 weekdays, 58 Saturdays, and 55 Sundays in 2009; and 253 weekdays, 57 Saturdays, and 55 Sundays in 2013. Source: HRT

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 11 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 8 System-Level Service Overview

System-Level Percent Before (2009) After (2013) Characteristics Change Southside Bus Revenue Vehicle-Hours 583,363 580,291 -0.5% Revenue Vehicle-Miles 7.11 mil 6.67 mil -6.1% Peak Bus Pull-out 46 45 -2.2% LRT Revenue Vehicle-Hours - 51,228 N/A - 377,097 N/A Peak Vehicle Pull-out - 6 N/A Ferry Revenue Vehicle-Hours 19,749 19,718 -0.2%

Comparison of Predicted Service Levels to Actual Service Levels In this section, predicted LRT and bus service levels at three project-development milestones will be documented: Entry into PE, Entry into FD, and the FFGA. The predicted service plan at each milestone will then be compared to the actual service plan for bus and light rail in operation approximately two years after implementation of the light rail project. A comparison of the predicted LRT service characteristics at each milestone is shown in Table 9. Table 10 compares bus routes within the Tide LRT corridor for each milestone year. The following sections will describe the proposed service level characteristics for bus corridor routes and The Tide at each milestone date.

Table 9 The Tide Service Levels - Milestones & 2013 Actual Span of Service 2013 Actual Entry to PE Final Design FFGA Weekday (Mon-Th) 6:00AM-11:00PM 6:00AM-10:00PM 6:00AM-10:00PM 6:00AM-10:00PM Weekend (Fri-Sat) 6:00AM-12:00AM 6:00AM-12:00AM 6:00AM-12:00AM 6:00AM-12:00AM Sunday (Sun) 10:55AM-9:00PM 7:00AM-9:00PM 7:00AM-9:00PM 7:00AM-9:00PM Headways (minutes)

Weekday Peak 10 7.5 7.5 7.5 Weekday Off-peak 15 15 15 15 Weekday Evening 30 30 30 30 Saturday base 15 15 15 15 Saturday (M/E) 30 30 30 30 Sunday base 15 15 15 15 Sunday (M) N/A 30 30 30 Annual Passenger Mi. 377,097 400,500 400,200 400,200 Weekday 292,974 309,600 310,100 310,100 Weekend 84,123 90,900 90,100 90,100 Annual Revenue Hrs. 29,249 25,950 25,990 25,990 Weekday 22,770 19,770 19,850 19,850 Weekend 6,479 6,180 6,140 6,140

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 12 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 10 Corridor Bus Service Levels - Milestones & 2013 Actual Predicted Headways Weekday Service Spans Service Days Connecting LRT Stations* Final Final Route Actual PE Design FFGA Actual Final Design Actual PE Design FFGA Actual PE Final Design FFGA 1 15-60 30-60 15-60 15-30 4:45 AM-12:45 AM Not Stated M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun Monticello Monticello, Govt. Center Monticello, Govt. Center Govt. Center 2 30-60 30-60 30-60 30 5:00 AM-1:45 AM Not Stated M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun EVMC/Ft. Norfolk Monticello, Govt. Center Monticello, Govt. Center Medical Ctr. 3 15-60 60 60 15-30 5:00 AM-1:45 AM Not Stated M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun Monticello Monticello, Govt. Center Monticello, Govt. Center Freemason 4 70 15-60 30-60 60 6:00 AM-6:45 PM 5:00AM-12:30AM M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun No Connections Medical Ctr, Monticello Medical Ctr, (Monticello) Freemason 6 30-60 60 60 30 5:30 AM-12:45 AM Not Stated M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun Civic Plaza/Govt. Center Not Stated Monticello, Govt. Center Govt. Center 8 30-60 30-60 30-60 30 5:15 AM-1:15 AM Not Stated M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun Civic Plaza/Govt. Center Monticello, Govt. Center Monticello, Govt. Center Govt. Center Monticello, Govt. Center, Monticello, Govt. Center, 9 30-60 30-60 30-60 30 5:45 AM-12:15 AM 5:30AM-10:30PM M-Sat M-Sat M-Sat M-Sun NSU NSU NSU Ballentine, NSU 11 60 30-60 30-60 60 6:00 AM-6:30 PM 6:00AM-7:00PM M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun No Connections Medical Ctr, Monticello Medical Ctr, (Monticello) Medical Ctr. Monticello, Govt. Center, Monticello, Govt. Center, 13 30-60 30-60 15-60 30-60 4:45 AM-12:45 AM 4:45AM-12:45AM M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun NSU NSU NSU NSU 15 15-60 15-60 15-60 15-30 4:45 AM-1:15 AM 4:45AM-2:00AM M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun Military Hwy Military Hwy Military Hwy Military Hwy 16 30-60 30 6:00 AM-12:30 AM M-Sun M-Sun EVMC/Ft. Norfolk Medical Ctr. 17 15-30 6:00 AM-12:45 AM M-Sun No Connections 18 60 30-60 30-60 60 5:45 AM-10:45 PM 5:00AM-10:30PM M-Sat M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun Ballentine, NSU Ballentine Ballentine Ballentine, NSU 20 15-60 30-60 15-60 15-30 5:00 AM-1:15 AM 4:45AM-1:30AM M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun Newton Rd. Military Hwy Military Hwy Military Hwy 22 60 6:00 AM-7:00 PM M-Sat Newton Rd. EVMC/Ft. Norfolk, Medical Ctr, Newton Rd, Medical Ctr, Newton Rd, 23 30-60 30-60 30-60 30 5:00 AM-1:30 AM 5:00AM-12:30AM M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun Military Hwy Monticello Monticello Military Hwy, Medical Ctr. 24 30-60 60 6:00AM-7:00PM M-Sat M-Sat Newton Rd. Newton Rd. 25 60 60 30-60 60 6:00 AM-12:45 AM 6:00AM-10:30PM M-Sat M-Sat M-Sat M-Sun Newton Rd. Newton Rd. Newton Rd. Newton Rd. 27 30-60 60 60 60 5:45 AM-1:00 AM 6:00AM-10:30PM M-Sat M-Sat M-Sat M-Sun Newton Rd. Newton Rd. Newton Rd. Newton Rd. 28 30 30 6:00 AM-6:45 PM M-F M-Sun Newton Rd. Newton Rd. EVMC/Ft. Norfolk, 44 60 30-60 30-60 60 6:00 AM-7:45 PM 5:00AM-10:30PM M-Sat M-Sat M-Sat M-Sun York St./Freemason Medical Ctr. Medical Ctr. Medical Ctr. 45 30-60 60 30-60 30 4:45 AM-12:00 AM Not Stated M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun M-Sun Civic Plaza/Govt. Center Not Stated Monticello, Govt. Center Govt. Center 63 15-60 30-60 5:00AM-12:30PM M-Sun M-Sun Newton Rd. Newton Rd. 64 30-60 30-60 6:00AM-7:00PM M-Sun M-Sun Ballentine, Harbor Park, NSU Ballentine, Harbor Park, NSU 310 60 M-Sun Govt. Center 918 Varies 5:45 AM-5:00 PM* M-F No Connections 919 Varies 5:00 AM-5:00 PM* M-F No Connections 922 Varies 5:00 AM-5:15 PM* M-F No Connections 960 60 ND 5:30 AM-8:15 PM M-Sun ND Civic Plaza/Govt. Center Govt. Center 961 30-60 ND 5:00 AM-10:15 PM M-Sun ND Civic Plaza/Govt. Center Govt. Center 962 ND ND Govt. Center 967 Varies ND 4:45 AM-6:45 PM* M-F ND Military Hwy Military Hwy *Government Center Station, as referred to in the PE, Final Design, and FFGA documentation, was later renamed to Civic Plaza Station. The change in name was not associated with any changes to the location or design of this station.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 13 The Tide Light Rail Project

Service Plan Anticipated at Entry into PE The Tide Service Levels at Entry into PE At entry into PE, weekday service was predicted to begin at 6:00 a.m. and end at 10:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. On Fridays and Saturdays, service would operate from 6:00 a.m. to midnight. Sunday service would operate from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

The Tide would operate at 7.5-minute headways during weekday peak periods, 15-minute headways in off-peak periods, and 30-minute headways in the evening. On weekends, the Tide would operate at 15- minute headways during the day and 30-minute headways in the early morning, evening, and late evening hours.

The service would operate seven trains during peak pull-out, four trains during base hours on weekdays and weekends, and two trains during evening and late evening hours on weekdays and weekends. In total, the Tide was predicted to reach 400,500 annual revenue car miles and 25,950 annual revenue train hours.

The Tide Service Levels – Differences between Entry into PE and Actual Just before revenue service began on The Tide, and not until after the FFGA had been signed, service hours for LRT were extended an additional hour on weeknights, and Sunday service hours were modified to start at 10:55 instead of 7:00 a.m. Proposed peak headways went from 7.5 minutes to 10 minutes between trains.

Bus Service Levels at Entry into PE The following section provides detail into the proposed changes at the Entry into PE phase. A description of the proposed weekday service characteristics for bus routes within the LRT corridor follows. There were no changes proposed to non-corridor routes.

Bus Service Levels – Differences between Entry into PE and Actual In the Preliminary Engineering phase there were 21 proposed bus routes which would provide service to at least one LRT station. These routes were called “corridor routes.” All but two corridor routes (Route 63 and Route 64) were existing routes which would have been modified to support the LRT network. The changes to bus service occurring between entry into PE and 2013 can be categorized according to geography as relating to 1)the western terminus, 2) downtown Norfolk 3) the I-264 corridor, 4) the eastern terminus.

At the western terminus, the station designated at entry into PE as Medical Center has been renamed to EVMC/Ft. Norfolk. At entry into PE, Routes 4, 11, 23, and 44 were designated to serve this station. Routes 23 and 44 serve this station as proposed, with Route 44 adding an additional connection at the nearby York Street/Freemason Station. Routes 4 and 11 were modified after the start of revenue service, to serve the new Downtown Norfolk Transit Center (DNTC) and no longer make a connection with LRT. Route 2 was originally proposed with service to the Monticello Avenue and Government Center Stations, but has been modified and now serves the EVMC/Ft. Norfolk Station instead. Route 16 to Old Dominion University now serves the western terminus as well, but this route had not yet been proposed at the Entry to PE milestone.

The downtown Norfolk core is served primarily by three stations: Monticello, MacArthur Square, and Civic Plaza (formerly Government Center) Stations. MacArthur Square Station serves a dense, walkable

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 14 The Tide Light Rail Project

area, and was not planned to include bus service at any of the milestone dates. At Entry into PE, the Monticello and Government Center Stations were situated along a common path that many routes would take to the old cedar Grove transfer location. Routes 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 13 all had proposed connections at both the Monticello and Government Center Stations.

Upon relocating the transfer center to Wood Street, it was no longer necessary to serve both stations with a single route. Routes 1 and 3 have been modified to serve the Monticello Station only. Route 8 now only serves Civic Plaza/Government Center. Route 2 was rerouted to the western terminus, while Routes 9 and 13, which were originally proposed with connections at Monticello, Government Center, and NSU, now only serve NSU. In addition, Routes 4 and 23 had proposed connections at Monticello Station at Entry to PE but do not serve any downtown LRT station currently. Route 4 is a short route terminating at the DNTC and route 23 bypasses the downtown area, serving the EVMC/Fort Norfolk and Military Highway Stations instead. Other routes currently serving the Government Center/Civic Plaza Station either were not planned at Entry into PE (Routes 960 and 961), or had no planned interactions with rail (Route 45).

Along the I-264 corridor, the Ingleside Road Station was accurately proposed as a neighborhood walk-up station. The Harbor Park Station was proposed as a predominantly park and ride oriented station, only served by Route 64, which has been significantly modified and is no longer a corridor Route. Neither of these stations are served by existing bus routes. Routes 9 and 13 serve NSU station as proposed. Route 18 serves Ballentine Station as proposed and has added a connection at NSU station.

At the eastern terminus, routes 25 and 27 serve the Newton Road Station as proposed. Route 20 also terminates at the Newton Road Station instead of the Military Highway Station as proposed. Meanwhile, Route 23 now terminates at Military Highway Station instead of the Newton Road Station as proposed. Two routes with proposed service to Newton Road (Routes 24 and 63) have been eliminated while two new routes (Routes 22 and 28) have added service from Newtown Road to the northeast and east.

Overall, the service plan at Entry into PE was a fairly accurate predictor of the overall character of the network and service to stations. Most changes to proposed LRT connections were a result of minor route tweaks occurring after the relocation of the downtown transfer center, with only a few proposed routes added, eliminated, or significantly rerouted over this 10+ year period.

Entry into Final Design Service Plan The New Starts application for Fiscal Year 2007 provides detail into the proposed changes at the Entry into FD phase. There were no major changes from the Entry into PE phase. The subtle change in The Tide’s annual passenger miles and annual revenue hours is due to small changes in trip time and route length. Four bus routes (Routes 13, 15, 20, and 25) had headways decrease and three routes (Routes 24, 63, and 64) had some headways increase. Route 64 added evening service to weekdays and Saturdays, but removed Sunday service.

The Tide Service Levels at Entry into Final Design At Entry into FD, the span of service and headways for both weekdays and weekends were not changed from the Entry into PE phase.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 15 The Tide Light Rail Project

Bus Service Levels at Entry into Final Design A description of the proposed weekday service characteristics for bus routes within the LRT corridor follows. There were no proposed changes to non-corridor routes.

Bus Service Levels – Differences between Entry into Final Design and Actual No changes to proposed bus connections to LRT stations occurred between Entry into PE and Entry into FD. Therefore, the accuracy of the predictions at entry into FD are identical to those described above at Entry into PE. Only a few minor schedule assumptions differentiated PE from FD, and those changes neither increased nor decreased the overall accuracy of predicted bus service.

FFGA Service Plan The HRT 2008 System Plan provides detail for the proposed changes at the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) phase. There were no major changes to The Tide service plan from the Entry into Final Design phase to the FFGA. Minor differences between the two milestones are summarized as follows. • There was one bus route added to connect to LRT stations (Routes 16). • Three routes were removed (Routes 24, 63, and 64).

The Tide Service Levels in the FFGA The span of service and headways for both weekdays and weekends were not changed from the Entry into PE phase. The hours of operation for light rail were adjusted just prior to the start of revenue service, well after the signing of the FFGA. The LRT system as predicted at the time of the FFGA is the same as that predicted at entry into Final Design.

Bus Service Levels in the FFGA Service level characteristics for the bus routes proposed as corridor routes are described in this section Routes were designated into three tiers based on headways. A description of the proposed weekday service characteristics for bus routes within the LRT corridor follows.

Bus Service Levels – Differences between FFGA and Actual At the western terminus, Routes 2, 16, 23 and 44 were accurately predicted to serve the EVMC/Ft. Norfolk Station. Route 44 now has an additional connection at the nearby York Street/Freemason Station. Route 11 was modified after the start of revenue service, to serve the DNTC and no longer makes a connection at the Medical Center as Planned.

In downtown Norfolk, Routes 6, 8, 45, 960 and 961 had been sufficiently refined at FFGA to accurately predict service to the Civic Plaza/Government Center Station. Route 310 was proposed at the FFGA milestone only with service to Civic Plaza/Government Center Station as well, but this route never materialized. The primary change from the FFGA milestone surrounds Refinement of the interaction between Monticello Station and the DNTC. Routes 1 and 3 currently connect to LRT at the Monticello Station instead of as proposed at Civic Plaza/Government Center Station and Freemason Station (respectively).

Along the I-264 corridor, Route 13 serves NSU station, Route 18 serves NSU and Ballentine Station, and Route 967 serves the Military Highway station as proposed. Route 9 serves NSU as proposed but does not serve the Ballentine Station as predicted at FFGA.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 16 The Tide Light Rail Project

At the eastern terminus, Routes 25, 27, and 28 serve the Newton Road Station as proposed. Routes 23 and 967 connect at the Military Highway Station as proposed. Route 20 now terminates at the Newton Road Station instead of the Military Highway Station as proposed. Route 22 from Newton Road to Shore Drive was added after the FFGA milestone.

Overall, the refinement of routes into FFGA allowed predictions at that milestone to be more accurate than at previous milestone, with the exception of Route 310, recommended only at this milestone.

Conclusion The introduction of the Tide light rail service in August 2011 presented a major milestone for HRT. The light rail line provided a new premium transit alternative to the automobile on a corridor parallel to I- 264. HRT was able to take advantage of utilizing an existing freight corridor that connected the suburban areas in the east to downtown Norfolk. Although no previous bus route operated on the exact line before the Tide service began, the routing had the benefit of directly serving major regional transit generators such as the Tidewater Community College and Norfolk State University campuses, downtown Norfolk, and the Eastern Virginia Medical Center campus.

As a result of implementation of the Tide service, there were no major changes to the bus network or services provided. Only one new bus route was created to increase service for Old Dominion University students and no routes needed to be eliminated. The August 2011 service changes were focused primarily on adjusting spans of service and headways of buses to match the light rail service and to adjust existing routes to serve stations in the vicinity of the route. In other words the Tide was incorporated into the system as a new east-west corridor, not as replacement of service

Service level predictions for the Tide were fairly consistent across all three milestones, calling for earlier service on Sunday and more frequent headways during peak periods than actually occurred.

Bus service level predictions at Entry into PE were moderately accurate, with some refinement needed to the interactions of bus routes with the downtown Norfolk LRT stations and the future (as yet to be planned) DNTC. Not much changed between entry into PE and entry into Final design, and predictions at that point were equally accurate. Refinements into FFGA increased the accuracy of almost all routes as planned and led to a highly accurate picture of the bus system as it exists today.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 17

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

Appendix D: Operations & Maintenance

Hampton Roads Transit Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project Operations & Maintenance

Introduction Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) is the regional provider of public transportation for the Southside and Peninsula areas of the Hampton Roads metropolitan area, which consists of the cities of Norfolk, Hampton, Newport News, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, and Virginia Beach. HRT was formed with the merger of the South Hampton Roads transit provider (Tidewater Regional Transit, TRT) and the north side operator (Peninsula Transit, PenTran). The HRT service area covers more than 369 square miles with a population of nearly 1.6 million.

The Tide light rail transit (LRT) service began in August of 2011. The route starts just west of Downtown Norfolk, at the Eastern Virginia Medical Center (EVMC)/Fort Norfolk Station. It extends east, through Downtown Norfolk and along the north side of the Elizabeth River Eastern Branch, ending at the Newtown Road Station at Newtown Road and Kempsville Road. HRT also operates bus, ferry, and paratransit service.

The purpose of this technical memorandum (tech memo) is to document the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) characteristics and costs of the HRT transit system, before and after implementation of The Tide, HRT’s first LRT line. HRT’s governing body, the Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads, was awarded a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) on October 1, 2007 by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) under its New Starts program in the amount of $127,980,000. This tech memo provides documentation of the project’s O&M characteristics as operated two years after implementation of the light rail and as predicted at three key milestones in the planning process: Entry into Preliminary Engineering (PE), Entry into Final Design, and the FFGA. The documentation provided in this tech memo will be summarized in the project’s Before-and-After Study, an FTA-required study for projects receiving New Starts funding.

The following dates are used to assess the before and after conditions: • “Before” conditions are represented by August 2009 service levels. • “After” conditions are represented by August 2013 service levels. These are the same levels of service in effect at the time of this report and are also referred to as “actual” service levels in comparison with predicted levels.

In addition, this report will describe the service levels predicted at three key milestones: • Entry into PE (November 2002), • Entry into Final Design (September 2006), and • FFGA (October 2007).

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 1 The Tide Light Rail Project

“After” Operating and Maintenance Characteristics (August 2013) The Tide LRT Operating Characteristics In 2013, The Tide LRT operated for a total of over 29,000 train-hours and 373,000 car hours, for an annual cost of approximately $9.5 million. Table 1 shows the operating characteristics for The Tide LRT two years after implementation of service. Performance measures such as cost per revenue hour and cost per revenue mile are moderately higher than the 2012 NTD reported national average ($255.5 per revenue hour and $16.3 per revenue mile).

Table 1 2013 LRT Operating Characteristics Variable Annual O&M Cost $9,501,238 Annual Train-Hours 29,849 Annual Car-Miles 373,045 Cost per Train-Hour $318.31 Cost per Car-Mile $25.47 Source: HRT, costs include an administrative component allocated to light rail

Bus Operating Characteristics In 2013, the bus system operated approximately 794,000 revenue hours and almost 10 million revenue miles for an annual cost of approximately $46.2 million, excluding administrative costs.

HRT System O&M Costs Overall, system operating costs were approximately $88.4 million in 2013. Over half of this was allocated to the bus program, with approximately 25% spent on administration, 10% spent on LRT, 10% on paratransit, and less than 2% on other services such as ferry boat and van pool. Approximately $670,000 of admin costs have been allocated to LRT in Table 1 above for a more relevant comparison of LRT cost predictions across milestone years.

“Before” Operating and Maintenance Characteristics (August 2009) Bus Operating Characteristics In 2009, the bus system operated approximately 860,000 revenue hours and 11.8 million revenue miles for an annual cost of approximately $43.6 million, excluding administrative costs

HRT System O&M Costs System operating costs two years before implementation of The Tide were approximately $72.5 million. Approximately 60% was allocated to the bus program, 27% spent on administration, 10% on paratransit, and less than 1% on other services such as ferry boat and van pool. A small portion of funds, approximately 0.3% of the annual operating budget, was allocated for LRT project and start-up personnel.

2 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Comparison of “Before” and “After” O&M Costs From 2009 to 2013, overall bus service decreased. Because several routes were streamlined for efficiency and better timing and interaction with the LRT (described in more detail in the Service Planning Memo), revenue hours decreased by 7.6% and revenue miles decreased by 15.3%. At the same time, operating costs went up, leading to higher cost performance measures. Table 2 shows the change in bus operating characteristics before and after the implementation of The Tide LRT.

Table 2 Comparison of 2009 & 2013 Bus Operating Characteristics Operating Characteristic Before (2009) After (2013) Percent Change Annual Revenue Hours 860,170 794,369 -7.6% Annual Revenue Miles 11,774,683 9,975,730 -15.3% Annual O&M Cost* $62,321,144 $66,738,261 7.1% Cost* per Revenue-Hour $72.45 $84.01 16.0% Cost* per Revenue-Mile $5.29 $6.69 26.4% *Based on fully allocated costs

The increase in bus costs and associated cost performance measures is primarily driven by inflation. When adjusted for inflation using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national consumer price index (CPI) data, bus costs actually go down by 1.4%, as shown in Table 3. While raw costs went up across every service mode, only LRT, ferry, para-transit, support vehicle, and administrative spending increased beyond normal inflationary levels.

Table 3 Comparison of 2009 & 2013 System Operating Costs Before Before Raw % Adj. % Mode After (2013) (2009) ($2013 Adj.) Change Change Bus $62,321,144 $67,671,994 $66,738,261 7.1% -1.4% LRT $223,205 $242,369 $9,501,237 NR NR Ferry $1,202,473 $1,305,717 $1,477,547 22.9% 13.2% Van Pool $176,300 $191,437 $184,645 4.7% -3.5% Para-transit $7,842,202 $8,515,528 $9,679,939 23.4% 13.7% Support Vehicles $717,419 $779,016 $849,283 18.4% 9.0% TOTAL $72,482,743 $78,706,061 $88,430,912 22.0% 12.4% NR- Not relevant percentages because of LRT start-up Source: HRT, BLS

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 3 The Tide Light Rail Project

Comparison to Milestone Predictions The predicted system wide operating characteristics and yearly O&M costs for the build alternative are discussed in greater detail for each milestone in the following sections. Costs presented at the milestone level are given in 2002 dollar values (for PE) and 2006 dollar values (for Final Design and FFGA.) In order to compare changing assumptions across time periods, all costs in Table 4 below have been converted to 2013 dollar values using the BLS CPI inflation calculator.

As shown, all three milestone reports predicted a lower service level for bus than the actual system levels in 2013. Some of these service differences may reflect the efficiencies incorporated into the bus routing and timing that resulted from the Service Efficiency Plan of 2012 which allowed for more bus service to be provided with minimal change to costs. However, a comparison of the hourly rates suggests that the milestone estimates were relatively consistent with the actual costs in 2013. There were several bus routes added to the system at the time of LRT implementation that indirect costs could be spread across more revenue hours.

Table 4 Comparison of predicted O&M Characteristics (Costs in Millions, $2013) PE - 2021 Final Design - FFGA - 2010 2013 Actual Build 2010 Build Build Bus System Operational Estimates Annual Bus Revenue Hours 794,369 634,000 664,230 527,740 Annual Bus Revenue Miles 9,975,730 8,023,400 7,664,200 6,594,000 Fully Allocated O&M Costs $66.74 M $68.79 M $50.49 M $50.49 M Cost per Revenue Hour $84.01 $108.50 $76.01 $95.67 The Tide LRT Operational Estimates Annual Train-Hours 29,849 25,950 25,980 26,750 Annual Car-Miles 373,045 400,500 400,100 392,700 Fully Allocated LRT O&M Costs $9.50 M $7.59 M $7.68 M $7.65 M Cost per Train-Hour $318.31 $292.49 $295.61 $285.98 Source: HRT, BLS

LRT service levels remain relatively steady across milestone years, with more train-hours but fewer car miles in 2013 than were predicted. All milestone reports underestimated the cost of LRT service by approximately $2 million or more. Table 5 offers a more detailed look at and highlights the primary discrepancies of LRT estimates by cost category for PE and Final design predictions as well as 2013 actual costs. FFGA costs are not available at this level of detail. There were two primary sources of discrepancies between the predicted and actual LRT costs. The casualties & liabilities cost category was underestimated by approximately $1.5 million. While HRT is self-insured, the final details of when additional insurance is invoked resulted in higher costs than the milestone model predicted. A risk assessment was conducted in November 2009 to inform decision makers on the coverage and level of insurance to be purchased by HRT. The decision to self-insure up $2 million was reached and premiums were estimated to be $2.3 M per year. Actual premiums in 2013 were considerably lower at $1.6M.

The number of service hours and resulting platform hours were underestimated in pre-opening day projections. Significant layover time was added in the off-peak hours to the schedule to enhance

4 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

schedule adherence and facilitate driver breaks and change-overs. The milestone operations plan only included this additional layover time during peak service. The layover time, in addition to slower operating speeds due to signal priority (rather than pre-emption); resulted in increased running time for the system and an additional vehicle during off-peak service times. Increasing from 4 to 5 vehicles to achieve base service added 3600 revenue hours into the system, annually.

Throughout LRT O&M cost development for Entry into PE and Final Design, HRT staff initially assumed 100% contracted maintenance. In actuality, The Tide used a mix of internal and contracted maintenance in 2013. This shift towards on-site employment for maintenance contributed to the lower-than-expected costs for services.

Table 5 Comparison of Fully Allocated LRT O&M Costs by Milestone 2013 Final Design - Build LRT Cost Category Actual PE - Build Alternative Alternative Dollar Value Year 2013 2002 2013 Adj. 2006 2013 Adj. Personnel Services $5,964,849 $3,161,221 $4,093,544 $3,548,300 $4,100,206 Services $777,845 $1,247,529 $1,615,456 $1,342,900 $1,551,776 Materials & Supplies $274,135 $585,935 $758,742 $499,200 $576,846 Utilities $646,660 $561,322 $726,870 $706,500 $816,390 Fuel $0* $11,824 $15,311 $7,200 $8,320 Casualties & Liabilities $1,643,977 $188,160 $243,653 $138,800 $160,389 Purchased Transportation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Miscellaneous Expenses $193,772 $117,518 $152,177 $98,100 $113,359 TOTAL EXPENSES $9,501,238 $5,861,683 $7,590,440 $6,650,500 $7,684,925 *No fuel costs were allocated to LRT in 2013. Source: HRT, Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Preliminary Engineering FEIS, Transit Operations and Maintenance Plan, HRT Light Rail Transit Project Final Design, Draft O&M Cost Results Report BLS

Predicted O&M Costs at Entry into PE The project as described in the FY05 New Starts submittal was a 7.4-mile light rail system comprised of exclusive, double-tracked guideway with sections of shared street ROW. Eleven stations were included in the project. FY05 New Starts identified a start date of summer 2008 for revenue operations.

The following sections overview the O&M data contained in the Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Preliminary Engineering FEIS, Transit Operations and Maintenance Plan. The plan describes No-Build, Baseline and Build scenarios for a 2021 project horizon year. The No-Build Alternative assumes only a proportional increase in existing 2002 transit services. The Baseline Alternative assumes a more robust NET Service, a downtown Norfolk circulator, as well as a new Express Bus corridor. The Build Alternative slightly reduces NET service, while adding new LRT service. All estimates are modeled off of 2002 service statistics and are reported in 2002 dollar values.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 5 The Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide LRT Operating Characteristics At entry into PE, the Tide LRT system was not yet named and was referred to in documentation as ‘Norfolk LRT.’ Light rail O&M costs for the Build Alternative are based on the following system operating characteristics: • 3.3 million annual rail passenger trips • 7 peak cars/9 cars in fleet • 400,500 annual revenue car-miles • 25,950 annual revenue train-hours • 11 LRT stations • 1 rail yard

The LRT O&M cost model included a staffing plan which assumed a new division comprised of four departments would be required to implement ongoing rail service. This rail division included 64.5 Full time employment positions with salaries ranging from $27-95k. Table 6 highlights O&M cost estimates for The Tide LRT. This cost does not include the additional $700,000 per year identified for LRT service- related changes to the HRT bus system identified in the FEIS bus service plans. The calculated cost per train-hour was lower than most other peer systems at the time. This was due to HRT’s use of one-car trains. However, cost per car-mile was similar to Dallas, San Jose and Los Angeles.

Table 6 Norfolk LRT O&M Cost Estimates (2002$) Variable 2021 Rail Plan Annual O&M Cost $5,861,683 Revenue Car-Miles 400,500 Revenue Train-Hours 25,950 Cost per Car-Mile $14.64 Cost per Train-Hour $226 Source: Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Preliminary Engineering FEIS, Transit Operations and Maintenance Plan

Bus and Trolley Operating Characteristics Table 7 provides a summary of service level predictions at entry into PE. The number of vehicles required (peak and fleet), revenue hours, and revenue miles are reported by service type for 2002 and 2021 horizon year alternatives. As expected, Express Route and Net Service statistics increase for the Baseline Alternative, while the Build Alternative shows a reduction in NET Service paired with an increase in Southside system local routes. Peninsula system service is constant across all alternatives.

6 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 7 PE Estimated Operating Statistics Southside New Corridor Southside Other Bus Alternative Total Local Routes Express Routes NET Service Services Peak/Fleet Vehicles 2002 Actual 146/175 N/A 6/8 128/154 280/337 2021 No-Build 176/210 N/A 6/8 160/193 342/411 2021 Baseline 182/218 6/7 20/25 160/193 368/443 2021 Build 185/221 N/A 4/5 160/193 349/419 Annual Revenue Bus-Hours 2002 Actual 458,600 N/A 18,470 294,000 770,470 2021 No-Build 589,100 N/A 18,470 367,000 974,570 2021 Baseline 621,300 18,610 53,620 367,000 1,060,530 2021 Build 634,000 N/A 11,200 367,000 1,012,200 Annual Revenue Bus-Miles 2002 Actual 6,031,800 N/A 118,400 3,903,400 10,043,600 2021 No-Build 7,550,800 N/A 118,400 4,879,000 12,548,200 2021 Baseline 7,928,500 306,200 181,100 4,879,000 13,294,800 2021 Build 8,023,400 N/A 55,500 4,879,000 12,957,900 Source: Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Preliminary Engineering FEIS, Transit Operations Plans and O&M Cost Results Report

HRT System O&M Costs In fiscal year 2002, the actual O&M costs were approximately $31.7 Million for the Southside system and $17.3 Million for the Peninsula transit system. HRT’s total O&M costs were over $49 million across all public transportation modes.

The estimated 2021 O&M costs for the No-build, Baseline and Build alternatives are shown below in Table 8. Total system costs for each scenario include ‘Other Transit Services’ such as paratransit, vanpool, Maxi-Ride, and ferryboat services, in addition to the bus, trolley and rail improvements described above. These costs assumed a 25 percent increase in paratransit and vanpool services over 2002 levels, with no increase in Maxi-Ride or Ferryboat Service.

Table 8 PE Estimated O&M Costs (in Millions, $2002) Cost by Mode 2002 Actual 2021 No-Build 2021 Baseline 2021 Build Bus/Trolley $42.81 $51.36 $54.24 $53.12 Other Transit Services $6.22 $7.29 $7.44 $7.29 NET N/A $0.80 $2.19 $0.48 The Tide LRT N/A N/A N/A $5.86 Total Estimated O&M Costs $49.03 $59.45 $63.87 $66.74 Source: Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Preliminary Engineering FEIS, Transit Operations Plans and O&M Cost Results Report

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 7 The Tide Light Rail Project

Predicted O&M Costs at Entry into Final Design The following sections overview the O&M characteristics at entry into Final Design as described in the Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Final Design, O&M Cost Results Report. Light rail revenue operations were scheduled to commence in January of 2010, two years later than originally intended at entry into PE. The plan describes similar No-Build, Baseline and Build alternatives but with a delayed project horizon year of 2030. The No-Build Alternative assumes only a proportional increase in existing 2002 transit services. The Baseline Alternative assumes a more robust NET Service. The Build Alternative slightly reduces NET service, but also adds The Tide LRT. The report also predicts operating statistics and costs for 2009 and 2010 opening year pre- and post-LRT service. The O&M model for Final Design was updated to incorperate 2006 service statistics and FY2004/2005 peer city LRT cost data. All estimates are reported in 2006 dollar values.

The Tide LRT Operating Characteristics The estimated LRT service statistics for the 2030 horizon year are as follows: • 7 peak vehicles/9 fleet vehicles • 25,980 annual revenue train-hours • 400,100 annual revenue car-miles • 7.34 one-way/14.68 directional route-miles • 11 LRT stations • 1 rail yard

These assumptions are similar to the 2021 statistics assumed at entry into PE with the exceptions of an additional 30 annual revenue miles and 400 fewer annual revenue car miles. The primary differences in this iteration of the rail service plan are the delayed implementation year, updates the LRT O&M model to incorporate newer (2004-2006) cost data and revisions to the LRT staffing plan. At entry into Final Design, the rail staffing plan included only 58 full time employees with salaries ranging from $22-66k. Table 9 highlights O&M cost estimates for The Tide LRT at entry into Final Design. The estimated cost per train-hour was lower than most other peer systems while the cost per car-mile was higher than peers due to the use of one-car train consists.

Table 9 The Tide LRT O&M Cost Estimates (2006$) Variable Build Alternative Annual O&M Cost $6,650,500 Revenue Car-Miles 400,200 Revenue Train-Hours 25,990 Cost per Car-Mile $16.62 Cost per Train-Hour $256 Source: HRT Light Rail Transit Project Final Design, Draft O&M Cost Results Report

Bus and Trolley Operating Characteristics Table 10 provides a summary of service level predictions at entry into Final Design. The number of vehicles required (peak and fleet), revenue hours, and revenue miles are reported by service type for all 2030 horizon year alternatives as well as 2009 (pre-LRT service) and 2010 (post-LRT service) opening year predictions.

8 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 10 Final Design Estimated Operating Statistics Southside Local New Corridor Southside NET Other Bus Alternative Routes+MAXSe Total Express Routes Service Services rvice Peak Vehicles 2009 Pre-LRT 119 N/A 6 185 310 2010 Post-LRT 125 N/A 6 186 317 2030 No-Build 145 N/A 6 221 151 2030 Baseline 155 8 14 221 177 2030 Build 152 N/A 4 221 156 Annual Revenue Bus-Hours 2009 Pre-LRT 502,080 N/A 18,570 389,818 910,468 2010 Post-LRT 527,740 N/A 18,170 397,581 943,491 2030 No-Build 638,200 N/A 18,570 476,048 1,132,818 2030 Baseline 678,040 23,560 33,560 476,048 1,211,208 2030 Build 664,230 N/A 11,230 476,048 1,151,058 Annual Revenue Bus-Miles 2009 Pre-LRT 6,520,100 N/A 118,400 5,864,615 12,403,115 2010 Post-LRT 6,594,000 N/A 118,400 5,971,796 12,684,196 2030 No-Build 7,610,800 N/A 118,400 6,778,228 14,507,428 2030 Baseline 7,964,100 343,200 185,000 6,778,228 15,270,528 2030 Build 7,664,200 N/A 55,700 6,778,228 14,498,128 Source: HRT Light Rail Transit Project Final Design, Draft O&M Cost Results Report

HRT System O&M Costs The estimated 2030 O&M costs for the No-build, Baseline and Build alternatives are shown below in Table 11. Total system costs for each scenario include ‘Other Transit Services’ such as paratransit, vanpool, Maxi-Ride, and ferryboat services, in addition to the bus, trolley and rail improvements described above. Ferry and vanpool 2030 service levels were determined by using the estimates from the Vision for the Future short-range plan. This included a significant increase in ferry service to 20,000 revenue-hours (predicted at intro into PE as 7,092 revenue-hours) and a vanpool fleet of 48 vans (predicted at intro into PE as 51 vans in 2021). A 25 percent increase was assumed for demand-response (paratransit) services. While the LRT system itself costs $6.6 Million, the baseline alternative spends approximately $3.6 Million more on bus, trolley, net and administration, resulting in a cost difference of only $3 Million between the Baseline and Build Alternatives.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 9 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 11 Final Design Estimated O&M Costs (in Millions, $2006) Cost by Mode 2009 Pre-LRT 2010 Post-LRT 2030 No-Build 2030 Baseline 2030 Build Bus/Trolley $42.52 $43.69 $50.93 $53.79 $51.76 NET $0.82 $0.82 $0.82 $1.44 $0.47 Other Transit Services $7.22 $7.42 $9.82 $9.82 $9.82 Administration $16.72 $17.00 $18.61 $19.39 $18.78 The Tide LRT N/A $6.65 N/A N/A $6.65 Total Estimated O&M $67.28 $75.58 $80.18 $84.44 $87.48 Costs Source: HRT Light Rail Transit Project Final Design, Draft O&M Cost Results Report

Predicted O&M Costs at the FFGA Milestone The FFGA was issued on October 1, 2007. In the FFGA, HRT agreed to achieve revenue operations of the project on or before January 1, 2010. The information in this section documents what was included in the FFGA.

The Tide LRT Operating Characteristics The FFGA presents three scenarios, all of which consist of some level of LRT service. Here, the baseline scenario refers to The Tide LRT service assumptions as carried forward from the Final Design Build Alternative. Slight adjustments to total annual revenue miles and O&M costs reflect the increasing level of detail available. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 assume minor schedule modifications which result in fewer revenue miles and greater revenue hours compared to the Baseline. The Baseline assumes 7.5 minute peak headways and a 16 hour service day beginning at 6:00 a.m. Scenario 1 expands the span of service, beginning at 5:30 a.m. but keeps costs neutral by reducing the number of hours in peak service. Peak headways for Scenario 1 are eight minutes. Scenario 2 further expands the span of service, beginning at 5:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and assumes a 10-minute headway (allowing more time built in for schedule recovery). Table 12 provides the service characteristics for all three LRT options. All scenarios assume the previously described 7.34-mile line, with 11 stations and one rail yard.

LRT Staffing assumptions were identical for FFGA as they were at entry into Final Design, consisting of 58 full time employment positions with salaries between $22-66K per year.

Table 12 The Tide LRT O&M Cost Estimates (2006$) from FFGA Variable Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Peak/Fleet Rail Cars 7/9 7/9 6/9 Annual Revenue Train-hours 25,980 26,700 26,750 Annual Revenue Car-miles 400,000 399,500 392,700 Annual O&M Cost (Millions) $6.65 $6.68 $6.62 Cost per Train-Hour $255.99 $250.18 $247.55 Cost per Car-Mile $16.63 $16.72 $16.86 Source: HRT

10 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Bus and Trolley Operating Characteristics Table 13 provides a summary of service level predictions at FFGA. The number of peak vehicles required, revenue hours, and revenue miles are reported by service type for 2009 (pre-LRT service) and 2010 (post-LRT service) alternatives. As expected, the post-LRT service alternative shows an overall increase in Southside local and MAX routes.

Table 13 FFGA Estimated Operating Statistics Southside Local New Corridor Southside NET Other Bus Alternative Routes+MAX Total Express Routes Service Services Service Peak Vehicles 2009 Pre-LRT 119 N/A 6 185 310 2010 Post-LRT 125 N/A 6 186 317 Annual Revenue Bus-Hours 2009 Pre-LRT 502,080 N/A 18,570 389,818 910,468 2010 Post-LRT 527,740 N/A 18,570 397,581 943,491 Annual Revenue Bus-Miles 2009 Pre-LRT 6,520,100 N/A 118,400 5,864,615 12,403,115 2010 Post-LRT 6,594,000 N/A 118,400 5,971,796 12,684,196 Source: HRT

HRT System O&M Costs The estimated O&M costs for the 2009 Pre-LRT and 2010 Post-LRT alternatives are shown below in Table 14. Total system costs for each scenario include ‘Other Transit Services’ such as paratransit, vanpool, Maxi-Ride, and ferryboat services, in addition to the bus, trolley and rail improvements described above.

Table 14 FFGA Estimated O&M Costs (in Millions, $2006) Cost by Mode 2009 Pre-LRT 2010 Post-LRT Bus/Trolley $42.52 $43.69 NET $0.82 $0.82 Other Transit Services $7.22 $7.42 Administration $16.72 $17.00 The Tide LRT N/A $6.65 Total Estimated O&M Costs $67.28 $75.58 Source: HRT

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 11 The Tide Light Rail Project

Summary LRT service levels remain relatively steady across milestone years, with more train-hours but fewer car miles in 2013 than were predicted. All milestone reports underestimated the cost of LRT service by approximately $2 million or more. There were three primary sources of discrepancies between the predicted and actual LRT costs.

1. The casualties & liabilities cost category was underestimated by approximately $1.5 million. While HRT is self-insured, the final details of when additional insurance is invoked resulted in higher costs than the milestone models predicted. A risk assessment was conducted in November 2009 to inform decision makers on the coverage and level of insurance to be purchased by HRT. The decision to self-insure up to $2 million was reached and premiums were estimated to be $2.3 M per year. Actual premiums in 2013 were considerably lower at $1.6M.

2. The number of service hours and resulting platform hours were underestimated in pre-opening day projections. Significant layover time was added in the off-peak hours to the schedule to enhance schedule adherence and facilitate driver breaks and change-overs. The milestone operations plan only included this additional layover time during peak service. The layover time, in addition to slower operating speeds due to signal priority (rather than pre-emption); resulted in increased running time for the system and an additional vehicle during off-peak service times. Increasing from 4 to 5 vehicles to achieve base service added 3600 revenue hours into the system, annually.

3. Throughout LRT O&M cost development for Entry into PE and Final Design, HRT staff initially assumed 100% contracted maintenance. In actuality, The Tide used a mix of internal and contracted maintenance in 2013. This shift towards on-site employment for maintenance contributed to the lower-than-expected costs for services.

Table 15 Summary of Cost Drivers Underestimated during Milestone Projections 2013 Final Design - Build LRT Cost Driver Actual PE - Build Alternative Alternative Annual LRT Revenue Hours 29,849 25,950 25,980 LRT Cost Category 2013$ 2002$ 2013$ Adj. 2006$ 2013$ Adj. Personnel Services $5,964,849 $3,161,221 $4,093,544 $3,548,300 $4,100,206 Services $777,845 $1,247,529 $1,615,456 $1,342,900 $1,551,776 Casualties & Liabilities $1,643,977 $188,160 $243,653 $138,800 $160,389 Source: HRT, Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project Preliminary Engineering FEIS, Transit Operations and Maintenance Plan, HRT Light Rail Transit Project Final Design, Draft O&M Cost Results Report BLS

12 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

Appendix E: Ridership Hampton Roads Transit Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project Ridership

Introduction The purpose of this technical memorandum (tech memo) is to document the ridership impacts of the Tide, Hampton Roads Transit’s (HRT) first light rail transit (LRT) line. HRT’s governing body, the Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads, was awarded a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) on October 1, 2007 by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) under its New Starts program in the amount of $127,980,000. This tech memo provides documentation of the project’s ridership impacts as actually occurred approximately two years after opening and as predicted at three key milestones in the planning process: Entry into PE, Entry into Final Design, and the FFGA. The documentation provided in this tech memo will be summarized in the project’s Before-and-After Study, an FTA-required study for projects receiving New Starts funding.

The tech memo is organized into two principal sections: • Impacts of the project on transit ridership; and • Accuracy of predicted ridership

Impacts of the Project on Transit Ridership This section describes the impact that the Tide LRT project has had on transit ridership in the Hampton Roads area. These impacts are described in two sub-sections: (1) trips on the project itself and (2) changes to trip-making on the regional transit system.

Information on actual Tide LRT ridership and regional transit system ridership after the introduction of the Tide are based on a transit passenger survey conducted in 2013 and 2014. This survey was based on the most recent recommendations of good transit survey practices prepared by the Federal Transit Administration. Key aspects of this survey program included:

• An on-and-off-survey conducted in the Fall of 2013 that collected detailed information on passenger boarding and alighting locations. This survey collected information for 27,118 trips representing 47% of all weekday trips made on HRT. • A comprehensive boarding and alighting count program that collected information on the number of passengers boarding and alighting at each stop. • An intercept survey of nearly 9,000 trip-makers that collected information on passenger and trip characteristics. This survey was conducted in the Spring of 2014 using a personal interview approach with tablet PCs for real-time data entry, survey control, and quality control. • Detailed survey expansion to weight passenger trip information to represent the total population of transit riders. Expansion was controlled by route, time-of-day period, boarding location, and alighting location.

The representation of HRT system ridership before the introduction of the Tide LRT service is based on a survey conducted in 2011 using then-current practices. This survey used traditional questionnaires and survey expansion was controlled by route. As part of this Before-and-After study, trips were re- weighted based on route and direction of travel and adjusted to account for missing information on

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 1 The Tide Light Rail Project

origin and destination location. Because the older survey methodology did not control for time-of-day of travel or for boarding and alighting location, the results are not completely comparable with the 2013/2014 survey. Differences between the survey approaches are more likely to affect detailed information on trip purpose or traveler characteristics. Overall transit usage patterns are more likely to be comparable between the two surveys.

Project Ridership As of the Fall of 2013, the Tide carried 4,600 trips per average weekday. As shown in Figure 1, the Tide attracted over 5,000 daily trips at the time of its opening. Ridership rose to over 6,000 trips per day during the summer of 2012 due to aggressive fare discounting. At the time, the HRT GoPass program offered a deeply discounted ticket that was phased out between June and December 2012. As this program was phased out, Tide ridership dropped to approximately 5,000 riders per day. More recently, ridership has ranged between 4,500 and 5,500 riders per weekday except in the months of November, December, and January, which have lower ridership due to the winter holidays. Ridership in January 2014 was also affected by a major snow storm which caused HRT to cancel service on one weekday.

Figure 1 Average Weekday Tide Ridership by Month

To understand the characteristics of these trips, Fall 2013 LRT passenger trip beginning and ending points from the intercept survey were geographically located according to whether the whether the trip-end was a production (home-end of the trip) or an attraction (non-home trip end)1.

To provide a context for this analysis, Figure 2 presents a corridor map showing the location of Tide stations and nearby major roadways. Using the same map scale, Figure 3 shows the locations of trip

1 In the case of non-home-based trips, the production trip end is assumed to be the same as the origin and the attraction trip-end is the same as the destination.

2 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

productions. Productions are most dense in areas immediately adjacent to the LRT line and in extended corridor areas (e.g., the Old Dominion University area of Norfolk and the Witchduck Road area of Virginia Beach). Trip productions also occur in a broader area but with less density.

Figure 4 presents Tide LRT trip attraction locations and shows that these trip ends are concentrated in the Central Business District (CBD), Eastern Virginia Medical Center (EVMC) and Norfolk State University areas of Norfolk. Travel to these areas constitute the core market for the Tide LRT. Other attractions are scattered along the corridor and throughout the region but at much less density. The pattern of concentrated attractions and more dispersed productions is similar to other fixed guideway transit systems around the country.

Trip flows from trip production locations to trip attraction locations provide information on the nature of travel occurring on the Tide LRT. These flows are aggregated by geographic areas (districts) that are defined so that they identify key concentrations of LRT travel. Figure 5 provides a map of the districts used in the analysis which are based on the LRT travel patterns described above.

Table 1 shows the number of total weekday LRT trips traveling from each production district to each attraction district. Each production district appears as a row in this table while each attraction district appears as a column. Figure 2 Location of LRT Stations and Nearby Major Roadways

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 3 The Tide Light Rail Project

Figure 3 Location of Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Trip Productions

4 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Figure 4 Location of Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Trip Attractions

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 5 The Tide Light Rail Project

Figure 5 Districts Used for Summarizing Trip Productions and Attractions

Table 1 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Unlinked Trip Flows by District Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 618 126 4 87 114 56 1,005 22% Other Corridor 2 373 69 17 37 35 52 584 13% ODU 3 136 30 - 26 49 35 277 6% N/S Feed Area 4 557 135 15 86 118 78 987 22% East Feed Area 5 591 29 77 96 - 58 851 19% Other 6 528 79 9 40 135 96 887 19% Total 2,803 469 122 373 450 375 4,592 100% Share 61% 10% 3% 8% 10% 8% 100%

6 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Consistent with the mapping described earlier, the Core area (Norfolk CBD, EVMC, NSU) attracts over 60% of all riders (2,803 out of 4,592). Remaining trip attractions are scattered over a large area with only 10% (469 out of 4,592) being attracted to corridor areas within walking distance of the line. The remaining trip attractions are distributed throughout much of the Southside2 portion of the Tidewater area.

Productions are less concentrated than attractions. Only 35 percent (1,589 out of 4,592) trips are produced in the corridor (Core and Other Corridor). Another 28 percent of trips are produced in other parts of Norfolk (ODU and North/South Feed Area) with the area near ODU being responsible for 6 percent of all Tide trip productions. The remaining 38 percent of trip productions are scattered across a broad area of the Hampton Roads region.

Table 2 illustrates the contribution that LRT makes to serving the regional transit market. This flow table shows the percentage of all linked transit trips made on LRT for some or part of the journey. For travel to the Core from the corridor or adjoining areas of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, LRT serves as a key element of the transit system with over 60 percent of transit riders using LRT. Between 20 and 40 percent of travel between the corridor and other regional destinations are made by LRT. As expected, more broadly dispersed regional transit trips are less likely to be made by LRT.

Tables 3 and 4 show home-based work (HBW) unlinked LRT trip flows between all production and attraction districts as trips and as a percentage of the total LRT market. This trip purpose is the most common for LRT riders with 43 percent of all LRT riders making HBW trips. This percentage is lower in the core and project corridor and higher in areas further from the project corridor. This outcome suggests that travelers near the line are more likely to use the Tide for all types of trips while persons further from the line are more likely to consider the service for just regular work trips.

Tables 5 and 6 show home-based university (HBU) trip flows by production and attraction district as trips and as a percentage of the total LRT market. Nineteen percent of all LRT riders are making HBU trips. Generally, these trips are traveling to the core where Norfolk State University and Tidewater Community College have campuses near LRT stations. A smaller number of trips are also attracted to Old Dominion University. This campus is located on a bus corridor that connects to the Tide LRT line.

Tables 7 and 8 show transit-dependent3 LRT unlinked flows by production and attraction district. Both the number of trips and the percentage of the total LRT market are shown. Slightly over half of all LRT riders are transit-dependents. The share of transit dependents is lower for trips attracted to the Core (42%) and higher in other areas served by the LRT.

2 Southside is the portion of Tidewater south of the James River and Hampton Roads. 3 Transit dependent trips are defined as those being made by members of 0-car households or travelers without a driver’s license.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 7 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 2 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Unlinked Trips as a Percentage of All Linked Transit Trips Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production Tota District 1 2 3 4 5 6 l Core 1 61% 23% 3% 11% 35% 10% 29% Other Corridor 2 68% 44% 31% 15% 23% 20% 41% ODU 3 26% 25% 0% 6% 37% 18% 19% N/S Feed Area 4 17% 22% 3% 2% 13% 6% 9% East Feed Area 5 67% 17% 68% 16% 0% 7% 23% Other 6 29% 28% 6% 4% 14% 1% 5% Total 35% 25% 11% 5% 12% 2% 12%

Table 3 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT HBW Unlinked Trip Flows Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 173 37 - 13 32 12 267 13% Other Corridor 2 86 15 15 9 32 17 173 9% ODU 3 19 6 - 9 31 27 92 5% N/S Feed Area 4 178 108 6 54 84 42 471 24% East Feed Area 5 312 19 22 47 - 42 442 22% Other 6 314 51 1 14 108 50 538 27% Total 1,082 236 44 146 286 189 1,983 100% Share 55% 12% 2% 7% 14% 10% 100%

8 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 4 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT HBW Trips as a Percentage of LRT Transit Trips Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production Tota District 1 2 3 4 5 6 l Core 1 28% 29% 0% 15% 28% 22% 27% Other Corridor 2 23% 21% 90% 25% 90% 33% 30% ODU 3 14% 21% 33% 62% 77% 33% N/S Feed Area 4 32% 80% 38% 63% 71% 54% 48% East Feed Area 5 53% 64% 28% 49% 73% 52% Other 6 59% 65% 15% 34% 80% 51% 61% Total 39% 50% 36% 39% 64% 51% 43%

Table 5 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT HBU Unlinked Trip Flows Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 87 - - 1 8 17 114 13% Other Corridor 2 101 - 2 - - 7 109 13% ODU 3 65 3 - 4 6 4 83 10% N/S Feed Area 4 202 - 5 4 3 17 230 27% East Feed Area 5 148 - 52 14 - 11 225 26% Other 6 75 6 7 - 6 6 100 12% Total 679 9 66 24 24 61 861 100% Share 79% 1% 8% 3% 3% 7% 100%

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 9 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 6 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT HBU Trips as a Percentage of LRT Transit Trips Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production Tota District 1 2 3 4 5 6 l Core 1 14% 0% 0% 2% 7% 31% 11% Other Corridor 2 27% 0% 10% 0% 0% 13% 19% ODU 3 48% 10% 17% 12% 11% 30% N/S Feed Area 4 36% 0% 33% 4% 3% 21% 23% East Feed Area 5 25% 0% 67% 15% 19% 26% Other 6 14% 7% 82% 0% 4% 6% 11% Total 24% 2% 54% 6% 5% 16% 19%

Table 7 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Transit-Dependent Trip Flows Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 281 78 - 73 65 21 518 21% Other Corridor 2 228 58 10 34 9 40 379 16% ODU 3 89 28 - 20 36 21 195 8% N/S Feed Area 4 247 90 13 61 100 62 572 24% East Feed Area 5 198 29 42 92 - 47 409 17% Other 6 131 54 3 37 81 47 355 15% Total 1,174 338 68 317 290 239 2,427 100% Share 48% 14% 3% 13% 12% 10% 100%

10 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 8 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Transit Dependent Trips as a Percentage of LRT Transit Trips Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 46% 62% 0% 84% 57% 37% 51% Other Corridor 2 61% 84% 58% 91% 25% 77% 65% ODU 3 65% 94% 77% 74% 60% 70% N/S Feed Area 4 44% 66% 86% 71% 85% 80% 58% East Feed Area 5 34% 100% 55% 95% 82% 48% Other 6 25% 69% 36% 93% 60% 49% 40% Total 42% 72% 56% 85% 65% 64% 53%

Tables 9 and 10 show LRT trip flows for passengers that use a non-motorized mode to access the first transit service they use. These trips include those that walk or bike directly to an LRT station and those that walk or bike to a bus and then transfer to the LRT. It excludes travelers who use an automobile to travel to or from transit, either as a driver or passenger. Over 70 percent of all LRT riders walk or bike to reach their first transit mode. Only trips traveling to the Core from origins outside the LRT corridor are more likely to drive or be driven than to use a non-motorized mode of access.

Table 9 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Trip Flows for Riders that Walk/Bike to the Transit System Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 591 126 4 87 109 55 973 29% Other Corridor 2 341 69 16 37 35 52 551 16% ODU 3 119 28 - 26 45 35 252 7% N/S Feed Area 4 293 100 13 86 101 66 658 19% East Feed Area 5 249 29 38 85 - 26 427 13% Other 6 190 71 6 37 132 74 511 15% Total 1,783 424 77 359 421 308 3,373 100% Share 53% 13% 2% 11% 12% 9% 100%

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 11 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 10 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Walk/Bike Access Trips as a Percentage of Total LRT Trips Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 96% 100% 100% 100% 96% 98% 97% Other Corridor 2 91% 100% 96% 100% 100% 100% 94% ODU 3 87% 93% 100% 91% 100% 91% N/S Feed Area 4 53% 74% 86% 100% 85% 85% 67% East Feed Area 5 42% 100% 49% 88% 45% 50% Other 6 36% 90% 67% 93% 98% 77% 58% Total 64% 90% 63% 96% 94% 82% 73%

Change in Overall Transit Ridership Tables 11-14 present a comparison of total system-wide weekday linked transit trips before and after the introduction of the Tide LRT service. Between 2011 and 2013, system-wide HRT linked trips grew from 35,700 to 38,700, an increase of 3,000 trips (8%). Much of this growth consists of transit trips attracted to the Core (2,200) and trips attracted to the North/South Feeder Area (1,100). Growth in trip productions is highest in the North/South Feeder Area and East Feeder Area. For travel to the Core it appears that the LRT has created new markets for travel via feeder bus and LRT to reach downtown Norfolk. Enhanced feeder bus service has also attracted additional ridership to HRT as demonstrated by the significant increase in N/S Feed Area-to-N/S Feed Area travel. Travel within the Core appears to have declined slightly which is potentially an outcome of the termination of shuttle route 310 (the Downtown circulator) when the Tide went into revenue service.

Table 11 Year 2011 System-wide Weekday Total Linked Transit Trip Flows (BEFORE) Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 1,626 604 85 904 157 736 4,111 12% Other Corridor 2 326 168 100 337 192 210 1,333 4% ODU 3 508 89 121 317 70 206 1,312 4% N/S Feed Area 4 1,850 722 298 3,110 623 1,125 7,729 22% East Feed Area 5 168 244 37 336 1,005 801 2,591 7%

12 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 11 Year 2011 System-wide Weekday Total Linked Transit Trip Flows (BEFORE) Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Other 6 1,343 342 103 989 883 14,977 18,638 52% Total 5,822 2,170 744 5,993 2,929 18,056 35,714 100% Share 16% 6% 2% 17% 8% 51% 100%

Table 12 Year 2013 System-wide Weekday Total Linked Transit Trip Flows (AFTER) Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 1,016 546 170 818 325 570 3,446 9% Other Corridor 2 551 159 54 241 151 262 1,418 4% ODU 3 523 121 38 429 133 191 1,435 4% N/S Feed Area 4 3,237 618 532 3,891 911 1,389 10,577 27% East Feed Area 5 883 176 112 587 1,178 809 3,745 10% Other 6 1,818 287 152 1,098 965 13,723 18,044 47% Total 8,029 1,908 1,059 7,065 3,663 16,943 38,666 100% Share 21% 5% 3% 18% 9% 44% 100%

Table 13 Year 2011 to Year 2013 Growth in System-wide Weekday Total Linked Transit Trips Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 (610) (58) 85 (85) 167 (165) (666) Other Corridor 2 225 (9) (46) (96) (41) 52 85 ODU 3 15 31 (83) 112 63 (16) 123 N/S Feed Area 4 1,386 (104) 234 780 288 263 2,849 East Feed Area 5 715 (68) 75 251 173 8 1,155 Other 6 475 (55) 49 110 82 (1,255) (594) Total 2,207 (262) 314 1,072 733 (1,113) 2,952

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 13 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 14 Year 2011 to Year 2013 Percentage Growth in System-wide Weekday Total Linked Transit Trips Attraction District East Other N/S Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 -37% -10% 101% -9% 106% -22% -16% Other Corridor 2 69% -5% -46% -29% -21% 25% 6% ODU 3 3% 35% -69% 35% 91% -8% 9% N/S Feed Area 4 75% -14% 78% 25% 46% 23% 37% East Feed Area 5 426% -28% 202% 75% 17% 1% 45% Other 6 35% -16% 48% 11% 9% -8% -3% Total 38% -12% 42% 18% 25% -6% 8%

Tables 15 to 18 present a comparison of Year 2011 and 2013 system-wide HBW linked transit trips. These tables show a slight drop in HBW trip making (-8 percent) distributed across many parts of the region. The North/South and East Feeder Areas are exceptions and show growth in HBW linked transit trips during the same period. These differences could be the result of different survey techniques applied for the 2011 and 2013 surveys or may represent a shift in transit demand patterns during that period.

Table 15 Year 2011 System-wide Weekday HBW Linked Transit Trip Flows (BEFORE) Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 800 266 18 420 136 406 2,046 11% Other Corridor 2 169 35 69 189 72 169 702 4% ODU 3 287 29 44 213 62 141 776 4% N/S Feed Area 4 917 454 194 1,917 425 689 4,596 25% East Feed Area 5 109 120 29 229 504 562 1,552 8% Other 6 914 166 45 653 407 6,827 9,013 48% Total 3,196 1,070 399 3,621 1,606 8,795 18,686 100% Share 17% 6% 2% 19% 9% 47% 100%

14 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 16 Year 2013 System-wide Weekday HBW Linked Transit Trip Flows (AFTER) Attraction District East Other N/S Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 321 195 46 411 144 236 1,353 8% Other Corridor 2 141 57 29 90 68 162 547 3% ODU 3 197 33 12 258 93 98 691 4% N/S Feed Area 4 995 314 195 1,801 521 706 4,533 26% East Feed Area 5 427 78 18 407 551 462 1,943 11% Other 6 753 141 48 712 459 5,997 8,109 47% Total 2,834 818 347 3,679 1,836 7,662 17,176 100% Share 17% 5% 2% 21% 11% 45% 100%

Table 17 Year 2011 to Year 2013 Growth in Weekday HBW System-wide Linked Transit Trips Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 (478) (71) 28 (10) 8 (170) (693) Other Corridor 2 (27) 22 (40) (99) (4) (7) (155) ODU 3 (90) 5 (32) 44 31 (43) (86) N/S Feed Area 4 78 (140) 1 (115) 96 17 (64) East Feed Area 5 318 (42) (11) 179 47 (100) 391 Other 6 (162) (25) 3 59 52 (830) (903) Total (362) (252) (52) 58 230 (1,133) (1,510)

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 15 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 18 Year 2011 to Year 2013 Percentage Growth in HBW System-wide Linked Transit Trips Attraction District East Other N/S Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 -60% -27% 157% -2% 6% -42% -34% Other Corridor 2 -16% 62% -58% -53% -5% -4% -22% ODU 3 -32% 16% -72% 21% 50% -31% -11% N/S Feed Area 4 9% -31% 0% -6% 23% 2% -1% East Feed Area 5 292% -35% -39% 78% 9% -18% 25% Other 6 -18% -15% 6% 9% 13% -12% -10% Total -11% -24% -13% 2% 14% -13% -8%

ACCURACY OF PREDICTED RIDERSHIP Table 19 presents a comparison of actual (counted) 2013 weekday Tide LRT ridership to forecasts of ridership at each project development milestone. Actual ridership in the Fall of 2013 was equal to 4,600 weekday boardings. Ridership forecasts prepared at the time of entry into Preliminary Engineering did not include an estimate of opening year ridership. New Starts reports prepared one year later estimated opening year ridership equal to 10,400 trips per day but the source of this number is not known. In its November 2003 project summary, the Federal Transit Administration reported this number but indicated that it had concerns about the ridership forecasts and did not rate the project. By entry into Final Design, these concerns were resolved and opening year ridership was estimated to be equal to 2,891 weekday trips, 37 percent less than what was actually attracted to the Tide LRT in 2013. These forecasts were unchanged at the time of the Full Funding Grant Agreement, one year later.

The opening year forecasts prepared for Entry into Final Design and the Full Funding Grant Agreement were based on Year 2011 demographic inputs and used without adjustment to represent 2009 or 2010 opening years. In the analysis that follows, these forecasts are labeled as “Predicted 2011 Opening Year Ridership” since they are most representative of expected conditions in that year.

The degree to which ridership was under-predicted at the time of Entry into Final Design and FFGA (2011 projection) is not evenly distributed across the region. In fact, the forecasting model correctly anticipated that the core would be the single most important attraction location for the Tide LRT and that attractions to other areas would be much more thinly distributed.

Tables 20 through 23 present a comparison of predicted versus actual total LRT ridership by district of production and district of attraction using the same district system from earlier sections. Total predicted LRT ridership for the year 2011 is less than actual year 2013 ridership by 1,700 riders per day (37%). Most significant markets (over 100 trips per day) are underestimated by 10 to 90 percent. The most notable exception is travel between the East Feeder District and the Core which is overestimated by 20 percent.

16 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 19 Actual Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Ridership Compared to Opening Year Forecasts at Milestones Predictions at Milestones

Entry into Entry into Final Full Funding Actual Preliminary Design Grant Agreement Engineering (9/13/2006) (10/2007) (11/4/2002) Weekday Ridership 4,592 Not estimated 2,891 2,891 Notes: Year 2013 Not estimated 2009 2010 Demographic data Not estimated 2011 2011 Template prepared by FY 2008 New FY 2008 New Source forecasting Start Report, Start Report, consultant, June 29, 2006 June 29, 2006 8/1/2002 Opening year FY2005 New forecasts Starts Report, Final report prior unchanged August 28, 2003 Comments to final design between entry has 10,400 milestone into final design opening year and Full Funding riders in 2008 Grant Agreement

Table 20 Opening Year (2011) Weekday Tide LRT Total Unlinked Trip Flows (PREDICTED) Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 533 64 3 16 37 6 661 23% Other Corridor 2 271 64 14 40 37 13 440 15% ODU 3 30 28 - 5 14 1 78 3% N/S Feed Area 4 330 65 2 9 46 5 457 16% East Feed Area 5 710 24 10 22 5 12 783 27% Other 6 415 28 2 9 16 4 473 16% Total 2,289 273 32 101 154 41 2,891 100% Share 79% 9% 1% 4% 5% 1% 100%

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 17 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 21 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Total Unlinked Trip Flows (ACTUAL) Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 618 126 4 87 114 56 1,005 22% Other Corridor 2 373 69 17 37 35 52 584 13% ODU 3 136 30 - 26 49 35 277 6% N/S Feed Area 4 557 135 15 86 118 78 987 22% East Feed Area 5 591 29 77 96 - 58 851 19% Other 6 528 79 9 40 135 96 887 19% Total 2,803 469 122 373 450 375 4,592 100% Share 61% 10% 3% 8% 10% 8% 100%

Table 22 Difference Between Predicted Year 2011 and Actual 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Total Unlinked Trips Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 (84) (62) (1) (71) (76) (50) (345) Other Corridor 2 (102) (6) (2) 3 1 (39) (144) ODU 3 (106) (2) - (21) (35) (34) (199) N/S Feed Area 4 (227) (70) (13) (77) (72) (72) (531) East Feed Area 5 119 (5) (66) (74) 5 (46) (68) Other 6 (113) (51) (7) (31) (119) (92) (414) Total (514) (196) (90) (272) (296) (334) (1,701)

18 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 23 Percentage Difference Between Predicted Year 2011 and Actual 2013 Weekday Tide LRT Total Unlinked Trips Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 -14% -49% -27% -81% -67% -89% -34% Other Corridor 2 -27% -8% -14% 9% 4% -75% -25% ODU 3 -78% -6% -81% -72% -98% -72% N/S Feed Area 4 -41% -52% -85% -90% -61% -93% -54% East Feed Area 5 20% -19% -87% -77% -79% -8% Other 6 -21% -65% -81% -78% -88% -96% -47% Total -18% -42% -74% -73% -66% -89% -37%

Predictions of overall commute travel to and from work are reasonably close to actual results and properly anticipate the fact that the Core would be the key attraction district for commuter trips. Nevertheless, predictions of home-based work (HBW) LRT travel overstate this concentration and underestimate travel to other districts. Tables 24 through 27 show that predicted weekday HBW LRT trips are higher than actual 2013 trips by 200 trips per day (12 percent). Almost all of the over- prediction of HBW trips occurs for travel to the Core which was over-predicted by 700 trips per day (65 percent). Trips to other locations in the region were under-predicted by approximately 500 trips per day. The largest percentage differences occur in areas that are away from the corridor and may represent the effect that reorganizing the feeder bus system had on ridership patterns.

Table 24 Opening Year (2011) Weekday Tide LRT HBW Unlinked Trip Flows (PREDICTED) Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 131 33 2 11 23 5 206 9% Other Corridor 2 214 38 10 27 25 11 325 15% ODU 3 29 20 - 4 11 1 64 3% N/S Feed Area 4 320 47 2 7 39 5 420 19% East Feed Area 5 683 16 9 20 5 12 744 34% Other 6 411 23 2 8 14 4 462 21% Total 1,787 177 25 78 117 36 2,221 100% Share 80% 8% 1% 3% 5% 2% 100%

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 19 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 25 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT HBW Unlinked Trip Flows (ACTUAL) Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 173 37 - 13 32 12 267 13% Other Corridor 2 86 15 15 9 32 17 173 9% ODU 3 19 6 - 9 31 27 92 5% N/S Feed Area 4 178 108 6 54 84 42 471 24% East Feed Area 5 312 19 22 47 - 42 442 22% Other 6 314 51 1 14 108 50 538 27% Total 1,082 236 44 146 286 189 1,983 100% Share 55% 12% 2% 7% 14% 10% 100%

Table 26 Difference Between Predicted Year 2011 and Actual 2013 Weekday Tide LRT HBW Unlinked Trips Attraction District East Other N/S Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 (43) (4) 2 (2) (8) (8) (61) Other Corridor 2 128 23 (5) 18 (6) (6) 151 ODU 3 9 13 - (5) (20) (26) (28) N/S Feed Area 4 142 (61) (4) (47) (45) (37) (50) East Feed Area 5 371 (3) (12) (27) 5 (31) 302 Other 6 97 (28) 0 (5) (94) (46) (76) Total 705 (59) (18) (68) (169) (153) 238

20 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 27 Percentage Difference Between Predicted Year 2011 and Actual 2013 Weekday Tide LRT HBW Unlinked Trips Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 -25% -10% -12% -26% -62% -23% Other Corridor 2 149% 159% -36% 196% -20% -37% 87% ODU 3 49% 209% -53% -65% -97% -30% N/S Feed Area 4 80% -56% -64% -87% -53% -88% -11% East Feed Area 5 119% -13% -57% -58% -73% 68% Other 6 31% -55% 30% -39% -87% -93% -14% Total 65% -25% -42% -47% -59% -81% 12%

The market for LRT travel between home and a non-work location (home-based other [HBO] trips) was largely missed by the forecasting procedures. Tables 28 through 31 show the differences between predicted and actual weekday HBO LRT travel. The predicted ridership includes very few LRT riders (178 trips per day) while the survey shows that actual ridership for this market exceeds 2,000 trips per day, more than the number of actual HBW trips carried by the Tide. The differences between predicted and actual HBO ridership are generally uniform across the entire analysis region.

Table 28 Opening Year (2011) Weekday Tide LRT HBO Unlinked Trip Flows (PREDICTED) Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 21 13 0 2 5 0 41 23% Other Corridor 2 35 18 3 10 8 2 76 43% ODU 3 1 6 - 1 2 0 10 6% N/S Feed Area 4 5 13 0 1 5 0 25 14% East Feed Area 5 12 4 0 1 (0) 0 19 10% Other 6 2 3 0 0 1 0 7 4% Total 76 58 4 15 21 2 178 100% Share 43% 33% 2% 9% 12% 1% 100%

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 21 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 29 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT HBO Unlinked Trip Flows (ACTUAL) Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 232 40 - 35 38 27 372 18% Other Corridor 2 232 55 2 28 4 33 354 17% ODU 3 114 20 - 15 15 8 172 8% N/S Feed Area 4 350 27 8 25 27 28 464 23% East Feed Area 5 246 11 55 41 - 11 364 18% Other 6 200 20 8 25 20 37 309 15% Total 1,374 172 72 169 103 144 2,034 100% Share 68% 8% 4% 8% 5% 7% 100%

Table 30 Difference Between Predicted Year 2011 and Actual 2013 Weekday Tide LRT HBO Unlinked Trips Attraction District East Other N/S Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 (211) (27) 0 (33) (34) (27) (331) Other Corridor 2 (197) (37) 2 (18) 4 (32) (277) ODU 3 (113) (13) - (15) (12) (8) (162) N/S Feed Area 4 (344) (14) (8) (24) (21) (28) (439) East Feed Area 5 (234) (6) (54) (40) (0) (11) (345) Other 6 (198) (17) (8) (24) (19) (37) (302) Total (1,298) (114) (68) (153) (81) (142) (1,856)

22 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 31 Percentage Difference Between Predicted Year 2011 and Actual 2013 Weekday Tide HBO LRT Unlinked Trips Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 -91% -67% -94% -88% -99% -89% Other Corridor 2 -85% -67% 92% -66% 121% -95% -78% ODU 3 -99% -68% -95% -84% -100% -94% N/S Feed Area 4 -98% -52% -98% -94% -80% -99% -95% East Feed Area 5 -95% -60% -99% -97% -99% -95% Other 6 -99% -83% -100% -98% -94% -100% -98% Total -94% -66% -94% -91% -79% -98% -91%

The substantial under-prediction of HBO trips may be a result of the forecasting techniques used at the time in this model and many others throughout the country. HBO models typically include a wide range of potential trip purposes such as shopping, medical visits, university trips, and personal business with only limited stratifications to account for different geographic distributions associated with each category. Even the most advanced forecasting tools seldom account for differences such as:

• Regional shopping centers that draw customers from throughout a metropolitan area as compared to strip malls which serve a local market • Major medical institutional campuses that serve the region as compared to medical office buildings housing primary care physicians • Major government centers where much personal business is conducted (City Hall, the City Court complex, Federal Court House, etc.) as compared to banks and post offices where routine chores are handled. • Universities, which may serve a dispersed population of students living throughout a region. • Sporting venues, such as the Scope, and the home for the Virginia Symphony-Chrysler Hall

The Tide LRT serves the Norfolk CBD, EVMC, and NSU—areas which have many examples of specialized attraction locations which would draw travelers from a much broader area than typical HBO trips.

The models used to forecast ridership were calibrated to match regional transit ridership by trip purpose. At the time of calibration, the model generated 16,100 regional daily HBW trips and 9,300 HBO trips—a ratio of 0.57 HBO trips for each HBW trip. The actual LRT trip ratio is 1.03 HBO trips per HBW trip. The model predicted .08 HBO LRT trips per HBW trip. Barring a simple application error, this outcome is most likely to be the result of an HBO trip generation and distribution process that did not fully recognize the unique nature of HBO attractions in the LRT corridor, their region-wide significance, and their ability to draw travelers from a broad area.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 23 The Tide Light Rail Project

This possibility is reinforced by the nature of HBO trips actually using the LRT and the presence of nearby major regional institutions and facilities. Table 32 presents the numbers of trips for different HBO-sub purposes and lists major attraction opportunities that could draw visitors from throughout the Tidewater area.

These findings suggest that future forecasting efforts for projects like the Tide LRT should carefully review HBO models to confirm that they properly understand HBO travel to regional attractions.

Table 32 Actual Weekday HBO LRT Trips with Known Detailed Trip Purposes 2013 Surveyed Sub-purpose Trips Nearby institutions/facilities Recreation 26 Nauticus/Scope/Chrysler Hall Eat/dine 44 Granby Street Medical 120 EVMC/Sentara Hospital (s) Social visit 69 University 681 NSU, TCC, ODU (bus transfer) Other business 51 Norfolk City Hall, Norfolk Courts Personal business 191 Complex, Federal Courthouse Shopping 196 MacArthur Center Total 1,378

In contrast to the HBO predictions, the non-home based (NHB) markets were predicted well.

Tables 33 through 36 present a comparison of predicted versus actual weekday NHB LRT travel. The predicted ridership matches actual ridership closely, under-predicting region-wide NHB trips by only 14 percent region-wide. The geographic distribution of travel is generally good, with the predicted values anticipating that the majority of NHB LRT trips would travel to or from the Core. The predicted values also anticipated that many of these trips would occur entirely within the Core (i.e., both the production and attraction trip ends located in the Core). This concentration is over-estimated in the predicted values but still properly represents the orientation of these trips.

One key reason for this success is the fact that the Norfolk LRT predictions made use of a special model that used experience with past transit fixed guideway projects to supplement estimates of NHB transit trips. This supplemental model represents additional NHB ridership generated by travelers attracted to LRT station areas for home-based purposes and then using the LRT to make additional non-home based trips. The supplemental model was responsible for 350 out of prediction of 490 NHB LRT trips. Nearly all of these trips are internal to the core.

24 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 33 Opening Year (2011) Weekday Tide LRT NHB Unlinked Trip Flows (PREDICTED) Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 382 18 0 3 10 1 414 84% Other Corridor 2 22 8 1 4 3 1 39 8% ODU 3 1 2 - 0 1 - 4 1% N/S Feed Area 4 5 5 0 0 1 0 12 2% East Feed Area 5 14 3 0 1 0 0 20 4% Other 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 1% Total 426 38 2 8 15 2 492 100% Share 87% 8% 0% 2% 3% 0% 100%

Table 34 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT NHB Unlinked Trip Flows (ACTUAL) Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 212 49 4 40 44 17 366 64% Other Corridor 2 55 - - - - 2 57 10% ODU 3 3 4 - 2 4 - 13 2% N/S Feed Area 4 29 - 1 7 7 8 53 9% East Feed Area 5 33 - - 8 - 5 45 8% Other 6 14 7 - 2 6 10 40 7% Total 347 61 6 59 61 41 574 100% Share 60% 11% 1% 10% 11% 7% 100%

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 25 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 35 Difference Between Predicted Year 2011 and Actual 2013 Weekday Tide LRT NHB Unlinked Trips Attraction District East Other N/S Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 170 (31) (4) (37) (34) (16) 48 Other Corridor 2 (33) 8 1 4 3 (1) (18) ODU 3 (2) (2) - (2) (3) - (9) N/S Feed Area 4 (25) 5 (1) (7) (6) (8) (41) East Feed Area 5 (18) 3 0 (7) 0 (4) (26) Other 6 (12) (6) 0 (2) (6) (10) (36) Total 79 (23) (3) (51) (46) (39) (83)

Table 36 Percentage Difference Between Predicted Year 2011 and Actual 2013 Weekday Tide LRT NHB Unlinked Trips Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 80% -64% -91% -92% -78% -95% 13% Other Corridor 2 -60% -61% -32% ODU 3 -77% -46% -96% -82% -72% N/S Feed Area 4 -84% -97% -97% -80% -99% -78% East Feed Area 5 -56% -86% -93% -57% Other 6 -84% -80% -94% -93% -99% -89% Total 23% -38% -59% -86% -75% -95% -14%

The predicted ridership included additional detail regarding household characteristics of travelers and mode of access for Home-Based Work Trips. Predictions of household auto ownership for HBW trips are presented in Tables 37 through 40. Although the forecasts underestimated actual ridership made by members of 0-car households by 300 trips per day (67 percent) it did properly represent the fact that the majority of HBW LRT trips are made by members of car-owning households. The predicted percentage of LRT trips made by car-owning households is 92 percent while the actual percentage is 74 percent. The error is generally distributed evenly across the region with travel to the core being somewhat more accurate (54 percent under-prediction) than travel to other locations.

26 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 37 Opening Year (2011) Weekday Tide LRT HBW 0-Car Household Unlinked Trip Flows (PREDICTED) Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 18 12 0 4 11 1 45 27% Other Corridor 2 27 8 1 6 6 2 50 29% ODU 3 4 5 - 1 3 0 13 8% N/S Feed Area 4 8 10 0 2 8 0 28 17% East Feed Area 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 9 5% Other 6 11 6 0 2 4 0 25 14% Total 74 42 2 15 33 4 170 100% Share 44% 25% 1% 9% 19% 2% 100%

Table 38 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT HBW 0-Car Household Unlinked Trip Flows (ACTUAL) Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 40 20 - 10 18 4 92 18% Other Corridor 2 22 - 8 7 1 7 45 9% ODU 3 16 4 - - 21 10 51 10% N/S Feed Area 4 21 30 6 5 30 16 109 21% East Feed Area 5 39 19 11 25 - 11 105 21% Other 6 23 38 1 6 30 8 106 21% Total 161 110 26 54 100 55 507 100% Share 32% 22% 5% 11% 20% 11% 100%

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 27 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 39 Difference Between Predicted Year 2011 and Actual 2013 Weekday Tide LRT HBW 0- Car Household Unlinked Trips Attraction District East Other N/S Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 (23) (7) 0 (7) (7) (3) (47) Other Corridor 2 4 8 (7) (1) 5 (5) 5 ODU 3 (12) 1 - 1 (18) (10) (38) N/S Feed Area 4 (13) (21) (5) (4) (22) (15) (80) East Feed Area 5 (31) (18) (11) (25) 0 (10) (96) Other 6 (11) (32) (1) (4) (26) (7) (81) Total (86) (69) (24) (39) (67) (51) (337)

Table 40 Percentage Difference Between Predicted Year 2011 and Actual 2013 Weekday Tide LRT HBW 0-Car Household Unlinked Trips Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 -57% -38% -65% -40% -73% -51% Other Corridor 2 20% -82% -15% 338% -76% 10% ODU 3 -76% 25% -85% -98% -74% N/S Feed Area 4 -63% -68% -96% -66% -73% -98% -74% East Feed Area 5 -81% -98% -99% -98% -99% -92% Other 6 -50% -83% -91% -68% -86% -94% -77% Total -54% -62% -92% -73% -67% -93% -67%

Tables 41 through 44 present a comparison of HBW Park-and-Ride (PNR) access trips. Predictions of HBW PNR trips are higher than actual by nearly 600 trips per day (90%). The forecasts properly anticipated the fact that nearly all PNR demand would be attracted to the Core. The forecasts significantly overstated the attractiveness of the LRT PNR opportunities for residents of North/South and East Feeder areas. For these trips, PNR estimates are more than twice as high as actual ridership. This could be caused by the fact that the actual service plan provides more feeder bus opportunities in these areas than was assumed at the time the predictions were prepared. It may also suggest that the geographic attractiveness of PNR options is more limited than represented in the underlying forecast models.

28 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

At the time the forecasting models were developed, transit PNR was very limited and served only 120 trips out of 30,000 regional transit trips. Many of these trips were made by travelers to the Norfolk Naval Base. This meant that the models had very little information upon which to base forecasts of PNR activity. As such, the divergence between predicted and actual PNR activity is not surprising.

Table 41 Opening Year (2011) Weekday Tide LRT HBW PNR Access Unlinked Trip Flows (PREDICTED) Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 1 - - - - - 1 0% Other Corridor 2 42 0 - - - - 43 4% ODU 3 8 - - - - - 8 1% N/S Feed Area 4 236 1 - - - - 237 20% East Feed Area 5 525 3 - - - - 529 45% Other 6 352 0 - - - - 352 30% Total 1,164 6 - - - - 1,169 100% Share 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

Table 42 Year 2013 Weekday Tide LRT HBW PNR Access Unlinked Trip Flows (ACTUAL) Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Share Core 1 5 - - - - 1 7 1% Other Corridor 2 4 - 1 - - - 5 1% ODU 3 ------0% N/S Feed Area 4 96 27 - - 7 - 130 21% East Feed Area 5 196 - 6 12 - 2 215 35% Other 6 241 4 - - - 13 258 42% Total 542 31 6 12 7 16 614 100% Share 88% 5% 1% 2% 1% 3% 100%

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 29 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 43 Difference Between Predicted Year 2011 and Actual 2013 Weekday Tide LRT HBW PNR Access Unlinked Trips Attraction District N/S East Other Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 (4) - - - - (1) (6) Other Corridor 2 38 0 (1) - - - 38 ODU 3 8 - - - - - 8 N/S Feed Area 4 140 (26) - - (7) - 107 East Feed Area 5 329 3 (6) (12) - (2) 314 Other 6 111 (3) - - - (13) 94 Total 621 (25) (6) (12) (7) (16) 555

Table 44 Percentage Difference Between Predicted Year 2011 and Actual 2013 Weekday Tide HBW PNR Access LRT Unlinked Trips Attraction District East Other N/S Feed Feed Core Corridor ODU Area Area Other Production District 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Core 1 -84% -100% -87% Other Corridor 2 849% -100% 735% ODU 3 N/S Feed Area 4 147% -95% -100% 82% East Feed Area 5 168% -100% -100% -100% 146% Other 6 46% -88% -100% 37% Total 115% -82% -100% -100% -100% -100% 90%

30 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

Appendix F: Land Use & Development Hampton Roads Transit Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project Land Use and Development

Purpose of the Report In the 2008 Documentation of Conditions Before Project Implementation Report, a list of planned developments was compiled to create a baseline of expected developments against which “realized” station area developments (what was actually constructed) could be measured. The purpose of this report is to determine which of the projects listed in the 2008 report have been constructed to date, identify station area developments that were not yet planned in 2008 but have subsequently been constructed, which of the station area developments can be attributed to LRT operations, and to identify developments that were planned in 2008 but have not been constructed. Because development activity is the result of multiple influences that can be difficult to untangle and isolate, the report begins with a summary of downtown Norfolk’s big-picture development context before the Tide began operations.

Norfolk’s Development Context By the mid-1990s, downtown Norfolk has experienced a cycle of disinvestment that resulted in residential, retail and entertainment uses largely abandoning the downtown in favor of neighborhood and suburban locations. The development of MacArthur Mall – a large-scale regional mall – in Norfolk’s central business district was a critical first step in reversing the cycle of disinvestment, and can be credited with beginning a cycle of reinvestment that has resulted in the renaissance of downtown Norfolk as a vibrant, mixed-use regional destination. While market forces – rather than LRT operations – are responsible for this renaissance, there are limited examples (discussed below) where LRT operations can be credited with catalyzing specific developments.

All Station Area Development Table 2 lists the projects that have been built (or have begun construction) since 2008 within a half-mile of Tide LRT stations (defined as the station area); Figures 1 and 2 map these developments. This list is a combination of completed projects from the 2008 report as well as projects that were not yet in development in 2008. As shown in Table 2 and Figures 1 and 2, 31 station area developments have been built (or are under construction) since 2008 within a half-mile of Tide LRT stations. As shown in the table and figures, the developments are a mixture of sizes, scales and uses, and the majority of the development has occurred in the station areas nearest the downtown.

Station Area Development That is Attributable to LRT According to the City of Norfolk Department of Development and Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) staff, the station area developments shown in Table 1 and Figure 1 – which are a mix of commercial, institutional, and residential uses - was directly attributable to Tide LRT operations. According to the City and HRT staff, the closure of these three development deals was dependent on a number of factors and concessions, including LRT operations.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 1 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 1: Development since 2008 within a Half-Mile of Tide LRT Stations That is Directly Attributable to LRT Service

In 2008 Map # Name LRT Station Area(s) Report? 1 Fort Norfolk Plaza EVMC / Fort Norfolk  York Street / Freemason 6 Belmont at Freemason Monticello  MacArthur Square York Street / Freemason Monticello 10 Wells Fargo (Wachovia) Tower MacArthur Square  Civic Plaza Source: Norfolk Department of Development, HRT Planning Staff

These three projects represent more than $305 million and 500,000 square feet of investment attributed by the City to the Tide System. While other developments in Table 1 may be attributable to the Tide, there is no information available to make a direct connection.

Planned Development That Has Not Been Constructed to Date Table 3 lists planned station area developments that were included in the 2008 report but were not constructed to date. Of the 33 planned developments listed in the 2008 report, 13 have been constructed (and are included in Table 2 and Figures 1 and 2), 12 have not been constructed (and are included in Table 3 and Figure 3), and eight fall outside of an LRT station area. The planned developments that were not constructed were – like the constructed developments - a mixture of sizes, scales and uses. There does not appear to be a pattern or common reason that these developments did not move into construction.

Conclusion There is very little evidence to indicate that any development that has happened in Norfolk since 2008 can be directly attributed to LRT, with the exception of the three developments listed in Table 1. As previously discussed, market forces are responsible for the renaissance of downtown Norfolk, which was catalyzed be the development of the MacArthur Mall.

2 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 2: Development since 2008 within a Half-Mile of Tide LRT Stations1

In 2008 Map # Name LRT Station Area(s) Details Report?* 2 Riverview Lofts EVMC / Fort Norfolk $16M development; 81 residential units EVMS Education and Research 3 EVMC / Fort Norfolk $80M development; 100,000 square feet Building York Street / Freemason $24M investment; updates and addition of two wings; new 4 Chrysler Museum of Art Monticello 7,000 square foot Glass Arts Building York Street / Freemason 5 220 West Monticello 6,000 square feet; 19 residential units MacArthur Square York Street / Freemason $35M development; 130,000 square feet; 160 extended 7 Residence Inn by Marriott Monticello stay units MacArthur Square York Street / Freemason 8 The Wainwright Monticello $20M conversion; 126 residential units MacArthur Square York Street / Freemason Monticello 9 Metro on Granby $24M development; 8,100 square feet; 84 residential units MacArthur Square  Civic Plaza York Street / Freemason Monticello 11 The James $13M conversion; 79 residential units; 2 retail spaces MacArthur Square Civic Plaza York Street / Freemason Monticello 12 Virginia Arts Festival Building $7.5M development; 17,440 square feet MacArthur Square  Civic Plaza

1 Note: There is no evidence to indicate that these developments occurred because of LRT operations.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 3 The Tide Light Rail Project

In 2008 Map # Name LRT Station Area(s) Details Report?* York Street / Freemason Tidewater Community College Monticello 13 $17.6M development; 55,000 square feet Student Center MacArthur Square  Civic Plaza York Street / Freemason Monticello $2M renovation of historic building and conversion to 14 Urban Outfitters MacArthur Square retail; 10,500 square feet Civic Plaza York Street / Freemason Monticello 15 Governor's School for the Arts $9.6M consolidation; 52,000 square feet MacArthur Square Civic Plaza York Street / Freemason Monticello 16 Rockefeller Apartments $17M conversion; 136 residential units MacArthur Square Civic Plaza York Street / Freemason Monticello 17 The Seaboard conversion from office use to 135 residential units MacArthur Square Civic Plaza York Street / Freemason Norfolk Half Moone Cruise & 18 Monticello 80,000 square foot cruise terminal and event space Celebration Center  MacArthur Square York Street / Freemason Monticello $125M development; 300 hotel rooms; 50,000 square foot 19 Hilton Norfolk at The Main MacArthur Square convention space; 3 restaurants Civic Plaza Monticello 20 Town Point Park MacArthur Square 7-acre redevelopment Civic Plaza

4 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

The Tide Light Rail Project

In 2008 Map # Name LRT Station Area(s) Details Report?* York Street / Freemason Monticello 21 Mo & O’Malley’s $6M development; retail with residential units MacArthur Square Civic Plaza York Street / Freemason Monticello $40M redevelopment; 110,00 square feet of retail and 22 Waterside Live MacArthur Square entertainment uses Civic Plaza York Street / Freemason Slover Memorial Library / Kirn Monticello 23 $64M development; 70,000 square feet Library Reuse MacArthur Square  Civic Plaza York Street / Freemason Monticello 24 MacArthur Memorial Expansion $6M expansion; 16,000 square feet MacArthur Square Civic Plaza Monticello MacArthur Square 25 The Rotunda conversion from office to 66 residential units Civic Plaza  Harbor Park Monticello MacArthur Square 26 Downtown Bus Transfer Facility $6M development; 3,700 square feet Civic Plaza Harbor Park Monticello Consolidated Courthouse MacArthur Square $121.7M development; 315,000 square feet; General 27 Complex Civic Plaza  District, Circuit, and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts Harbor Park Civic Plaza 28 Amtrak Passenger Rail Facility Harbor Park $3.75M development; 3,500 square foot NSU Marie V. McDemmond Center Harbor Park 29 128,000 square foot research center for Applied Research NSU 

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 5 The Tide Light Rail Project

In 2008 Map # Name LRT Station Area(s) Details Report?* NSU Nursing and Allied Health 140,000 square foot building; laboratory and classroom 30 NSU Building  space; cafes, lounges Grandy Village rehab; Grandy 363 residential units (rehab); $4.1M development, 15,000 31 Ballentine / Broad Creek Village Learning Center (GVLC)  square feet (GVLC) Sources: Norfolk Virginia Project Updates, First Quarter 2014, City of Norfolk; Downtown Norfolk Transit Oriented Development, Norfolk Department of Development; conversations with the Norfolk Department of Development; web searches *Note: the scale and character of built projects may vary from the scale anticipated in the 2008 Before Project Implementation Report

6 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Figure 1: Development Projects within a Half-Mile of Tide LRT Stations That Were Constructed After 2008: EVMC/Fort Norfolk Station to Ballentine Boulevard / Broad Creek Station

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 7 The Tide Light Rail Project

Figure 2: Development Projects within a Half-Mile of Tide LRT Stations That Were Constructed After 2008: Ballentine Boulevard / Broad Creek Station to Newtown Road Station

8 | Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 3: Planned Station Area Developments listed in the 2008 Before Project Implementation Report within the Vicinity of Tide Station Areas That Were Not Constructed as of November 2014

Planned Development Name Planned Station Area Development Details from 2008 Before Project Implementation Report

Granby Tower Planned 31-story, $125M residential tower; 309 residential units; 15,000 square feet of retail

Federal Courthouse Expansion $166M expansion of existing facility; addition of seven floors for a total of eleven floors

Fort Norfolk Development $300M master planned development; 30 acres; 1,800 residential units, 85,000 square feet of office/research space.

Cosmo 418 11 floor residential building; 16 units; restaurant

Brambleton Development $30M development; 35 to 40 floors; 300 residential units; 10,000 square feet of retail Shopping center redevelopment $5M mixed-use redevelopment; 12.5 acres along St. Paul’s Boulevard Third Anchor, MacArthur Center No tenant identified; estimated to be same size and scale as other two anchor tenants

Snyder Lot City-owned parking lot with developer interest

Greyhound Terminal Site No redevelopment plan, but considered as location for the Kirn Library

Union Mission Building Identified by Norfolk Department of Development as potential residential development site Norfolk Housing and 13-floor building at 201 Granby Street identified as potential residential re-use Redevelopment Building The Hague Medical Building Potential high-density mixed-use redevelopment

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 9 The Tide Light Rail Project

Figure 3: Planned Station Area Developments listed in the 2008 Before Project Implementation Report within the Vicinity of Tide Station Areas That Were Not Constructed

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 10

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

Appendix G: Parking

Hampton Roads Transit Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project Parking

Introduction This purpose of this report is to review and compare City of Norfolk parking policies, parking supply, and parking utilization reports before and after the implementation of Light Rail service in the area in an attempt to determine the impact of LRT service on parking in the Central Business District (CBD) and fringe CBD. The number of spaces, utilization rates, and costs of City-controlled parking garages and parking lots in Norfolk’s CBD) and fringe CBD were inventoried in the 2008 Before Project Implementation Report. This inventory, which relied on 2006/2008 data, has been updated to 2014 data as part of this After Project Implementation Report and is discussed below. Details of the City’s parking policy and regulatory changes, and a comparison of between 2006/2008 and 2014 parking supply, demand, and cost for City-controlled lots and garages in Norfolk’s CBD and fringe CBD can be found in the sections below.

A comparison of 2006/2008 and 2014 parking does not demonstrate a direct correlation between Tide LRT operations and parking supply, demand, and cost in Norfolk’s CBD. The data does show that the supply of parking (number of spaces) in City-controlled parking garages and lots has increased by eight percent between 2006 and 2014 (two new garages have opened and five lots/garages have closed) while the utilization rate has declined by four percent. This means that the number of utilized City- controlled parking spaces has remained stable between 2006 and 2014. The price of parking has increased to some degree between 2008 and 2014 for all City-controlled parking garages and lots within the CBD, but the degree of increase is determined by the City’s 2010 pricing restructure from tiered to flat pricing in City-controlled lots and garages.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 1 The Tide Light Rail Project

This policy change was partially catalyzed by the realization that “application of suburban parking standards in the Arts District and in Fort Norfolk has created a barrier to revitalization”1 and to improve compliance with Character Districts defined in plaNorfolk2030, the city’s General Plan. The City Council approved the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance on March 25, 2014.

Special Conditions Included in the Project Full Funding Grant Agreement The City’s recent parking and development policy changes are in alignment with the project Full Funding Grant Agreement, signed in October 2007, which includes two special conditions related to land use and transportation planning: 1. “The Grantee acknowledges that the Government’s provision of Federal financial assistance to the Project is specifically conditioned upon the continuing enforcement of Resolution No. R-3, “Transit Oriented Downtown Parking Policy,” adopted October 18, 2005, by the City of Norfolk’s City Council, a true copy of which is affixed to this Attachment to this Agreement. The Grantee agrees and promises to take any and all actions, within its powers, as may be reasonable and necessary to ensure the continued enforcement of Resolution No. R-3 for a period of no less than five years following the completion of the Project, now estimated for January 1, 2010.” 2. “The Grantee agrees and promises to take any and all actions, within its powers, as may be reasonable and necessary to ensure local adoption of policies that promote transit-oriented development adjacent to the stations on the light rail line; operation of “feeder” bus routes and services that optimize travel times between satellite parking facilities and the stations on the light rail line; and adoption of value pricing parking policies within the city limits of Norfolk.”

Parking Supply The number of spaces and utilization rates of City-controlled parking garages and parking lots in Norfolk’s CBD were inventoried in the 2008 Before Project Implementation Report. This inventory, which relied on 2006 data, has been updated to 2014 data as part of this After Project Implementation Report.

Table 1 lists the 2006 / 2014 City-controlled parking lots and garages in Norfolk’s CBD, which is defined as the area bound on the west by Boush Street, on the east by St. Paul’s Boulevard, on the north by Brambleton Avenue, and on the south by Waterside Drive, and the fringe CBD, which is the area just outside of the CBD. Figure 1 shows the location of the 2014 parking facilities.

The City controls 90 percent of the parking in downtown Norfolk; the remaining 10 percent is privately- controlled. Privately-controlled parking facilities are not included in this inventory. Two of the garages included in Table 1, Bank and Charlotte Street Garages, were built in 2010, after the 2008 Before Project

1 “Getting the Parking Right,” February 2014; http://www.norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13821

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 2 The Tide Light Rail Project

Implementation Report was completed. Their primary purpose was to accommodate demand that was generated by the construction of the Wells-Fargo Tower. These garages were opened just before the City started considering changes to its parking policy in 2010, as described in the previous section.

While the utilization rate of the City-controlled parking garages and lots has decreased four percent, the total number of parking spaces has increased over eight percent (from 16,418 to 17,925) between 2006 and 2014. This increase in the number of spaces reflects the construction of the Bank and Charlotte Street Garages, which added 1,858 additional parking spaces to the CBD. The majority of spaces in these two new garages (80 percent) are designated for monthly parking. Five lots/garages closed between 2006 and 2014, resulting in the loss of 1,390 spaces.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 3 The Tide Light Rail Project

Figure 1: 2014 City-Controlled CBD Parking Facilities

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 4 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 1. City-Controlled Parking Garages and Lots in Norfolk’s Central Business District and Fringe Central Business District

2006 2014 City of Norfolk CBD and CBD Total Number of Number of Total Number of Number of Fringe Parking Facilities Number of General Monthly Utilization Number of General Monthly Utilization Parking Parking Parking Rate* Parking Parking Parking Rate Spaces* Spaces* Spaces* Spaces Spaces Spaces Bank Street Garage ------1,372 274 1,098 75% Board of Trade Lot 15 -- 15 100% Closed Boush Street Garage 716 266 450 81% 716 266 450 81% Cedar Grove Lot (special event / 1,200 -- 1,200 65% 1,200 -- 1,200 n/a cruise parking only) Chamber of Commerce Lot -- -- 31 100% Closed Charlotte Street Garage ------486 100 386 86% Commercial Place Garage 743 83 160 78% 743 83 660 78% Freemason Street Garage 617 124 353 42% 617 44 573 42% Education Lot ------232 30 -- n/a Harbor Park Lot 2,441 -- 2,200 35% 2,441 -- 2,441 35% Harrison Opera House Lot 400 -- 400 50% 400 -- 400 50% Lot 31 69 69 -- 75% Closed Lot 56 176 -- 176 n/a Closed Macarthur Center Garage - North 1,672 1,362 310 45% 1,672 1,173 499 45% Macarthur Center Garage - South 2,932 1,760 1,172 45% 2,932 1,241 1,691 45% Main Street Garage 707 192 515 70% 707 142 565 70% Monticello Lot 333 77 256 60% Closed Monticello Avenue Garage 766 153 613 55% Closed Plume Street Parking Lot 169 -- 169 82% 169 0 169 82% Scope Garage 593 493 100 20% 593 393 200 20% St. Paul's Lot ------776 -- 776 43% Town Point Garage 880 90 790 80% 880 90 790 80%

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 5 The Tide Light Rail Project

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 6 The Tide Light Rail Project

Parking Costs In 2002, the City of Norfolk – in response to concerns that parking demand generated by CBD development would exceed the existing parking supply - established a three-tiered pricing structure for City-controlled parking garages and lots. The tiering of the garages was based on their proximity to prime demand generators: garages and lots closest to those generators were classified as Tier 1, which was the most expensive tier. Garages and lots that were located successively further away from those demand generators were classified in the less expensive Tiers 2 and 3. The intent was to use pricing as a means to more evenly distribute parking demand throughout City-owned garages and lots. Table 1 outlines the tiered parking rate structure. The location of City-controlled CBD parking lots and garages – and their tier classification – are shown in Figure 1.

In 2010, the City eliminated the tiered parking garage pricing structure because development was more evenly distributed throughout the city than anticipated, which resulted in a more even distribution of parking demand than anticipated. The City decided that the tiered structure was not necessary to balance demand among the City-controlled parking lots and garages. Table 2 shows the current parking rates for 2014.

A comparison of 2008 and 2014 parking cost data does not demonstrate a direct correlation between Tide LRT operations and parking costs in Norfolk’s CBD.

Table 2. Downtown Norfolk Parking: Tiered-Pricing System, as of 2008

2008 City of Norfolk Garage and Parking Lot Costs Special City of Norfolk Garage and Max up Event/ 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 Lost Parking Lot Tiers to 24 Collect Hour Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Ticket Hours on Entry Tier 1 $0.75 $1.50 $2.50 $4.50 $6.50 $8.50 $10.50 $12.50 $14.00 $14.00 $5.00 Tier 2 $0.50 $1.25 $2.25 $3.25 $4.25 $5.25 $6.25 $7.25 $8.00 $8.00 $4.00 Tier 3 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $4.50 $4.00 Source: City of Norfolk website; Norfolk LRT Project Documentation of Conditions before Project Implementation

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 7 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 3. 2014 Parking Rates for City-Controlled Parking Facilities in City of Norfolk Central Business District and Fringe CBD

2014 Parking Rates Special Max City of Norfolk CBD and Event/ 2008 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 up to Lost CBD Fringe Facilities Collect Tier Hour Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours 24 Ticket on Hours Entry Bank Street Garage -- Boush Street Garage 1 $1.50 $3.00 $4.50 $6.00 $7.50 $9.00 $10.50 $12.00 $13.00 $13.00 $5.00 Charlotte Street Garage -- Commercial Place Garage 1 Education Lot NA - City-controlled spaces are only metered up to two hours -- Freemason Street Garage $1.50 $3.00 $4.50 $6.00 $7.50 $9.00 $10.50 $12.00 $13.00 $13.00 $5.00 2 Harbor Park Lots NA - Monthly Parking ($43 or $73 day/$20 or $25 night) or Special Event ($5) -- Harrison Opera House Lot NA - Monthly Parking ($37 or $67 day/$20 or $25 night) or Special Event ($5) -- Macarthur Center Garage 1 – North $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $3.00 $5.00 $7.00 $9.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 -- Macarthur Center Garage 1 – South Main Street Garage $1.50 $3.00 $4.50 $6.00 $7.50 $9.00 $10.50 $12.00 $13.00 $13.00 $5.00 1 Plume Street Parking Lot NA - Monthly Parking Only ($69 or $99 day/$28 or $33 night) or Special Event ($5) 1 Saint Paul's Lot NA - Monthly Parking Only ($43 day or night) or Special Event ($5) -- Scope Garage 2 Town Point Garage $12.00 1 Waterside Garage $1.50 $3.00 $4.50 $6.00 $7.50 $9.00 $10.50 $13.00 $13.00 $5.00 2 West Plume Street Garage 1 $11.00 York Street Garage 3 Source: City of Norfolk website; Norfolk LRT Project Documentation of Conditions before Project Implementation

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 8 The Tide Light Rail Project

Additional Transit Network Factors The Norfolk NET Circulator (HRT Route 17) was a downtown circulator bus route that was established in 1999 to connect residents and visitors with employment, dining, entertainment, shopping, and other destinations within downtown. Operation of the route supported reduced parking demand, as riders could choose to circulate car-free throughout the downtown. The name NET, which is short for Norfolk Electric Transit, refers to the operation of electric-powered buses along the original route. Over the years, the routing of the NET has changed, including: • Between 2011 and 2013, the downtown service operated as a bi-directional circulator route from the former Cedar Grove Transfer Center to Water Street, near the Waterside Festival Marketplace along the Elizabeth River, via Granby Street. • When the Cedar Grove Transfer Center closed in July 2013, the NET was revised to operate as a one-directional loop around downtown, traversing Granby Street, Main Street, St Paul’s Drive, and Brambleton Avenue, serving the interim Downtown Norfolk Transit Center.

The service, which originally was fare-free, was converted to the HRT bus fare structure in 2011 to reduce a perceived competition with the new LRT service that arose from their similar routes through downtown Norfolk. Due to low route ridership and duplication of transit service in the downtown, Route 17 was discontinued in July 2014.2

Free LRT park-and-ride lots (Harbor Park, Ballentine/Broad Creek, Military Highway, and Newtown Road) have increased transit system access by suburban users. Despite these free parking facilities, however, HRT planning staff report that some commuters have continued to choose to park at CBD fringe lots and garages and walk into the CBD as a means to more directly access to their final destination.

Conclusions A comparison of 2006/2008 and 2014 parking does not demonstrate a direct correlation between Tide LRT operations and parking supply, demand, and cost in Norfolk’s CBD. The data does show that the supply of parking (number of spaces) in City-controlled parking garages and lots has increased by eight percent between 2006 and 2014 (two new garages have opened and five lots/garages have closed) while the utilization rate has declined by four percent. This means that the number of utilized City- controlled parking spaces has remained stable between 2006 and 2014. The price of parking has increased to some degree between 2008 and 2014 for all City-controlled parking garages and lots within the CBD, but the degree of increase is determined by the City’s 2010 pricing restructure from tiered to flat pricing in City-controlled lots and garages.

The City of Norfolk is making policy changes with the expressed belief that Tide LRT will play a role in reducing demand for parking within station areas; however, it is too soon to measure or predict the actual impacts of those 2014 policy changes on parking supply and demand at this time.

2 https://hartride2012tampa.wordpress.com/transit_focus_pages/hampton-roads-area-virginia/hampton-roads- transit/norfolk-net-downtown-circulator/

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 9

The Tide Light Rail Project

Appendix 1

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 10

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project

Appendix H: Traffic

Hampton Roads Transit Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project Traffic

Introduction In the 2008 Documentation of Conditions Before Project Implementation Report, Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and intersection turn movement counts of major roadway segments and intersections were conducted in 2007 at the same locations as in the project Final Environmental Impact Statement. A subset of these segment and intersection locations was updated to 2014 count data. The methodology and results of this update, as well as reasons for changes in the count volumes, are included in the sections below.

Traffic Counts In the 2008 Documentation of Conditions Before Project Implementation Report, ADT counts of 52 major roadway segments were conducted in 2007 at the same locations as in the project Final Environmental Impact Statement. A subset of these locations – seven locations, listed below – was updated to 2014 count data. ADT counts were taken over the course of week (including the weekend) at the following locations, which are mapped in Figure 1: 1. City Hall Avenue between Monticello and St. Paul’s Boulevard 2. St. Paul’s Boulevard between Waterside and City Hall Avenue 3. Eastbound City Hall Avenue between St. Paul’s Boulevard and Berkeley Bridge 4. Westbound City Hall Avenue between St. Paul’s Boulevard and Berkeley Bridge 5. Brambleton Avenue between Tidewater Drive and Park Avenue 6. Brambleton Avenue between Park Avenue and I-264 7. Ballentine Boulevard between I-264 and Virginia Beach Boulevard

A comparison of the 2007 and 2014 ADT data is shown in Table 1.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 1

The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 1: 2007 / 2014 ADT Count Data with After (2014) Photos

Percent Map # Roadway Name Segment From Segment To 2007 2014 Difference Change 1 City Hall Avenue Monticello Avenue St. Paul’s Boulevard 13,990 6,449 -7,541 -54% Source: URS Team

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project 2 | The Tide Light Rail Project

Percent Map # Roadway Name Segment From Segment To 2007 2014 Difference Change 2 St. Paul’s Boulevard Waterside City Hall Avenue 14,885 8,546 -6,339 -43% Source: URS Team

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 3

The Tide Light Rail Project

Percent Map # Roadway Name Segment From Segment To 2007 2014 Difference Change 3 Eastbound City Hall Avenue St. Paul’s Boulevard Berkeley Bridge 13,522 42,410 -23,072 -154% Westbound City Hall 4 St. Paul’s Boulevard Berkeley Bridge 5,816 Avenue Source: URS Team

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project 4 | The Tide Light Rail Project

Percent Map # Roadway Name Segment From Segment To 2007 2014 Difference Change 5 Brambleton Avenue Tidewater Drive Park Avenue 28,650 32,035 3,385 12% Source: URS Team

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 5

The Tide Light Rail Project

Percent Map # Roadway Name Segment From Segment To 2007 2014 Difference Change 6 Brambleton Avenue Park Avenue I-264 39,630 34,216 -5,414 -14% Source: URS Team

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project 6 | The Tide Light Rail Project

Percent Map # Roadway Name Segment From Segment To 2007 2014 Difference Change 7 Ballentine Boulevard I-264 Virginia Beach Boulevard 29,935 14,859 -15,076 -50% Source: URS Team

ADT counts have declined at six of the seven count locations between 2007 and 2014. Two main issues influenced the variation in ADT counts between 2007 and 2014 (with the exception of Ballentine Boulevard, which is discussed below): • Construction of the new City Hall complex on the east side of St. Paul’s Boulevard in the vicinity of City Hall Avenue has resulted in lane closures and various traffic impacts. • Tolls have been added to the Downtown and Midtown Tunnels, with major shifts in traffic orientation and mixed impacts: people either avoid the tolls using alternate routes, or shift travel times to avoid peak-hour prices.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 7 The Tide Light Rail Project

Figure 1: Locations of 2007/2014 ADT Counts

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 8 The Tide Light Rail Project

Intersection Counts In the 2008 Documentation of Conditions Before Project Implementation Report, peak period turn movement counts were conducted in 2007 at 38 intersections. A subset of these locations – nine locations, listed below – was updated to 2014 count data. Intersection turn movement counts were taken during the AM peak period (6:00 am to 9:00 am) and PM peak period (3:00 pm to 6:00 pm) during a weekday at the following locations, which are mapped in Figure 2: 1. St. Paul’s Boulevard and City Hall Avenue 2. Monticello Avenue and City Hall Avenue 3. Monticello Avenue and Freemason Street 4. Monticello Avenue and Charlotte Street 5. Boush Street and Bute Street / Charlotte Street 6. Duke Street and Bute Street 7. Brambleton Avenue and Duke Street 8. Ballentine Boulevard and I-264 Westbound Ramps 9. Ballentine Boulevard and I-264 Eastbound Ramps / Westminster Avenue

A summary comparison of the 2007 and 2014 turn movement count data is shown in Table 2; more detailed information can be found in Appendix 1.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 9 The Tide Light Rail Project

Table 2: 2007 / 2014 Intersection Turn Movement Count Data with Before (2008) and After (2014) Photos, As Available

2007 2014 Change, 2007 to 2014 Map Intersection # AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM PM AM PM Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection LOS LOS LOS LOS Total Total Total Total Total Total St. Paul’s Boulevard and City Hall 3,040 D 4,434 F 2,397 D 4,655 F -643 221 Avenue 1 Comments: The 2014 volumes may be impacted by construction of the new City Hall building on the southeast corner and the implementation of tolls on the Downtown Tunnel. Before tolls, vehicles headed to the tunnel would block the City Hall Avenue ramp on westbound I-264.

Source: URS Team

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project 10 | The Tide Light Rail Project

2007 2014 Change, 2007 to 2014 Map Intersection # AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM PM AM PM Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection LOS LOS LOS LOS Total Total Total Total Total Total Monticello Avenue and City Hall 1,198 B 1,495 B 516 B 1,024 B -682 -471 Avenue* 2 Comments: This intersection has an exclusive pedestrian phase. The pedestrian phase was mimicked by adding a northbound exclusive phase and the delay was recalculated excluding the northbound movement. For the "after" LRT condition w/pre-emption, the northbound phase was extended by the LRT pre-emption time and, consequently, represents the exclusive pedestrian phase and the pre-emption phase; then the delay was recalculated excluding the northbound movement. *Impacts of signal pre-emption in Appendix 1 Source: URS Team

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 11

The Tide Light Rail Project

2007 2014 Change, 2007 to 2014 Map Intersection # AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM PM AM PM Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection LOS LOS LOS LOS Total Total Total Total Total Total Monticello Avenue and Freemason 663 A 1,018 A 387 C 611 C -276 -407 Street 3 Comments: Monticello Avenue was narrowed from four lanes to two lanes with the installation of the LRT line. The LRT at this intersection is not pre- empted and moves with the signal operation.

Source: URS Team

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project 12 | The Tide Light Rail Project

2007 2014 Change, 2007 to 2014 Map Intersection # AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM PM AM PM Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection LOS LOS LOS LOS Total Total Total Total Total Total Monticello Avenue and Charlotte 684 B 953 A 439 C 695 C -245 -258 Street 4 Comments: Monticello Avenue was narrowed from four lanes to two lanes with the installation of the LRT line. The LRT at this intersection is not pre- empted and moves with the signal operation.

Source: URS Team

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 13 T he Tide Light Rail Project

2007 2014 Change, 2007 to 2014 Map Intersection # AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM PM AM PM Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection LOS LOS LOS LOS Total Total Total Total Total Total Boush Street and Charlotte Street / 2,042 B 2,458 B 2,248 B 2,272 B 206 -186 Bute Street* 5 Comments: The "after" LRT pre-emption was mimicked by adding an eastbound/westbound exclusive left phase (existing lefts were minimal and added to the through movement).

*Impacts of signal pre-emption in Appendix 1 Source: URS Team

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 14 The Tide Light Rail Project

2007 2014 Change, 2007 to 2014 Map Intersection # AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM PM AM PM Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection LOS LOS LOS LOS Total Total Total Total Total Total Duke Street and 393 n/a 623 n/a 431 B 532 B 38 -91 Bute Street 6 Comments: This intersection was un-signalized before the LRT was installed and was signalized as a part of the project. The LRT at this intersection is not pre-empted and moves with the signal operation.

Source: URS Team

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 15 The Tide Light Rail Project

2007 2014 Change, 2007 to 2014 Map Intersection # AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM PM AM PM Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection LOS LOS LOS LOS Total Total Total Total Total Total Duke Street and 4,536 B 4,972 F 3,882 D 4,102 D -654 -870 Brambleton Avenue 7 Comments: There were a few lane assignment changes for southbound Duke St; in 2007 there were duel left turn southbound lanes and now there are not.

Source: URS Team

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project 16 | The Tide Light Rail Project

2007 2014 Change, 2007 to 2014 Map Intersection # AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM PM AM PM Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection LOS LOS LOS LOS Total Total Total Total Total Total Ballentine Boulevard and Westbound 2,667 C 2,805 C 2,090 B 2,408 B -577 -397 Off/Westbound On Ramp* 8 Comments: The westbound ramps, eastbound ramps, and Westminster Avenue operate on one controller with phasing set-up that can't be directly analyzed by Highway Capacity Software (HCS; the software tool used to analysis traffic operations). To provide a comparison, the movements on the north side of the interchange at the westbound ramps were analyzed as a stand-alone intersection. It is noted that traffic volumes may not be entirely representative at this intersection because of queuing from the south side of the interchange limiting movement. The "after" LRT pre-emption was mimicked by adding an exclusive eastbound phase and the delay was recalculated excluding the eastbound movement. *Impacts of signal pre-emption in Appendix 1 Source: URS Team

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 17

The Tide Light Rail Project

2007 2014 Change, 2007 to 2014 Map Intersection # AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM PM AM PM Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection LOS LOS LOS LOS Total Total Total Total Total Total Ballentine Boulevard and Eastbound Off/Eastbound On 1,872 F 2,195 F 1,559 F 2,113 F -313 -82 Ramp / Westminster Avenue 9 Comments: The westbound ramps, eastbound ramps, and Westminster Avenue operate on one controller with phasing set-up that can't be directly analyzed by HCS. To provide a comparison, the movements on the south side of the interchange at eastbound ramps and at Westminster Avenue were analyzed together as a stand-alone intersection. Due to geometric constraints, because it is a five-legged intersection, HSC can't directly analyze this intersection either. To provide some sort of before/after comparison, the intersection at the eastbound ramps was analyzed adding an exclusive movement representing Westminster Avenue. This is not exactly how the intersection operates, but since the same methodology was applied for the "before" and "after" LRT condition, the comparison is the same constraints. However, because the intersection cannot exactly be modeled, the intersection probably operates worse than was calculated here. Further, the LRT pre-emption does impact this intersection, but HCS can't analyze it because there are no available phases remaining to mimic that condition. Source: URS Team

Figure 2: Locations of 2007/2014 Intersection Turn Movement Counts

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project 18 | The Tide Light Rail Project

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 19 The Tide Light Rail Project

Conclusion With a few exceptions, both ADT and intersection turn counts declined between 2007 and 2014; we do not have sufficient data to link these changes to LRT operations. A number of factors may have influenced the reduction in ADT and intersection turn counts, including LRT operations (which could include mode shift of drivers to transit, lane reductions and the impacts of signal pre-emption on driver behavior), new tunnel tolls, and new building construction (and related construction impacts), but we do not have evidence to definitively make that link.

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 20 The Tide Light Rail Project

Appendix 1

Final Report from the Before-and-After Study of the Tide Light Rail Project | 21 ST. PAULS BLVD & CITY HALL AVE

2007 - BEFORE ANALYSIS

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 243 1,126 394 1,277 3,040 Delay 56.6 46.2 22.3 35.1 39.3 LOS EDCD D

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 1,419 328 1,255 1,432 4,434 Delay 319.6 43.0 114.9 64.5 158.8 LOS FDFE F

2014 - AFTER ANALYSIS

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 212 991 155 1,039 2,397 Delay 55.0 47.3 39.9 40.9 44.7 LOS EDDD D

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 1,032 550 1,885 1,188 4,655 Delay 56.6 61.1 340.2 51.2 170.6 LOS EEFD F

CHANGE

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume -31 -135 -239 -238 -643 Delay -1.6 1.1 17.6 5.8 5.4 LOS - - decline - -

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume -387 222 630 -244 221 Delay -263 18.1 225.3 -13.3 11.8 LOS improve improve - improve -

COMMENTS: The 2014 volumes may be impacted by construction of the new City Hall building on the southeast corner and the implementation of tolls on the Downtown Tunnel. Before tolls, vehicles headed to the tunnel would block the City Hall Avenue ramp on westbound I-264. MONTICELLO AVENUE & CITY HALL AVE

2007 - BEFORE ANALYSIS

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 351 654 - 193 1,198 Delay 7.7 13.4 - 21.6 13.1 LOS A B - C B

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 714 454 - 327 1,495 Delay 10.7 12.1 - 20.6 13.3 LOS B B - C B

2014 - AFTER ANALYSIS: without Pre-emption

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 202 275 - 39 516 Delay 7.7 13.1 - 15.7 11.2 LOS A B - B B

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 533 344 - 147 1,024 Delay 8.5 13.4 - 20.5 11.9 LOS A B - C B

2014 - AFTER ANALYSIS: with Pre-emption

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 202 275 - 39 516 Delay 7.7 13.1 - 15.7 11.2 LOS A B - B B

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 533 344 - 147 1,024 Delay 8.7 13.7 - 19.9 12.0 LOS A B - C B

LRT: 12 pre-emptions per hour AM : 150s cycle length; 24 cycles/hour = 50% pre-empt/50% non-pre-empt PM : 140s cycle length; 25.7 cycles/hour = 47% pre-empt/53% non-pre-empt MONTICELLO AVENUE & CITY HALL AVE

2014 - AFTER ANALYSIS: Averaged

50% Pre-empted AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 202 275 - 39 516 Delay 7.7 13.1 - 15.7 11.2 LOS A B - B B

47% Pre-empted PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 533 344 - 147 1,024 Delay 8.6 13.5 - 20.2 11.9 LOS A B - C B

CHANGE

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume -149 -379 - -154 -682 Delay 0.0 -0.3 - -5.9 -1.9 LOS - - - improve -

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume -181 -110 - -180 -471 Delay -2.2 1.3 - -0.1 -1.4 LOS improve - - - -

COMMENTS: This intersection has an exclusive pedestrian phase. The pedestrian phase was mimicked by adding a northbound exclusive phase and the delay was recalculated excluding the northbound movement. For the "after" LRT condition w/pre-emption, the northbound phase was extended by the LRT pre-emption time and, consequently, represents the exclusive pedestrian phase and the pre-emption phase; then the delay was recalulated excluding the northbound movement. MONTICELLO AVENUE & FREEMASON STREET

2007 - BEFORE ANALYSIS

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 48 123 254 238 663 Delay 24.2 26.4 2.5 2.4 8.5 LOS CCAA A

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 158 60 424 376 1,018 Delay 22.0 20.5 3.4 0.1 6.1 LOS CCAA A

2014 - AFTER ANALYSIS

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 77 96 75 139 387 Delay 18.6 19.2 23.4 26.6 22.6 LOS BBCC C

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 104 102 189 216 611 Delay 16.6 17.1 27.0 28.2 24.0 LOS BBCC C

CHANGE

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 29 -27 -179 -99 -276 Delay -5.6 -7.2 20.9 24.2 14.1 LOS improve improve decline decline decline

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume -54 42 -235 -160 -407 Delay -5.4 -3.4 23.6 28.1 17.9 LOS improve improve decline decline decline

COMMENTS: Monticello Avenue was narrowed from four lanes to two lanes with the installation of the LRT line. The LRT at this intersection is not pre-empted and moves with the signal operation. MONTICELLO AVENUE & CHARLOTTE STREET

2007 - BEFORE ANALYSIS

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 37 145 159 343 684 Delay 16.2 17.0 17.4 18.2 17.7 LOS BBBB B

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 78 67 385 423 953 Delay 37.3 37.7 0.2 5.0 6.1 LOS DDAA A

2014 - AFTER ANALYSIS

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 26 125 112 176 439 Delay 18.4 19.9 29.7 15.5 20.6 LOS BBCB C

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 74 150 206 265 695 Delay 16.8 17.8 28.3 20.7 21.9 LOS BBCC C

CHANGE

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume -11 -20 -47 -167 -245 Delay 2.2 2.9 12.3 -2.7 2.9 LOS - - decline - decline

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume -4 83 -179 -158 -258 Delay -20.5 -19.9 28.1 15.7 15.8 LOS improve improve decline decline decline

2007 - BEFORE ANALYSIS

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 41 44 1,070 887 2,042 Delay 33.0 32.8 11.6 13.0 13.1 LOS CCBB B

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 61 18 1,216 1,163 2,458 Delay 54.0 51.7 10.8 9.9 11.7 LOS DDBA B

2014 - AFTER ANALYSIS: without Pre-emption

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 22 49 1,320 857 2,248 Delay 55.8 57.4 13.8 15.5 15.8 LOS EEBB B

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 49 36 987 1,200 2,272 Delay 53.2 52.4 12.2 13.0 14.1 LOS DDBB B

2014 - AFTER ANALYSIS: with Pre-emption

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 22 49 1,320 857 2,248 Delay 45.8 47.2 16.1 18.0 17.8 LOS DDBB B

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 49 36 987 1,200 2,272 Delay 43.0 42.0 14.3 15.3 15.8 LOS DDBB B

LRT: 12 pre-emptions per hour AM : 150s cycle length; 24 cycles/hour = 50% pre-empt/50% non-pre-empt PM : 140s cycle length; 25.7 cycles/hour = 47% pre-empt/53% non-pre-empt BOUSH STREET & BUTE STREET/CHARLOTTE STREET

2014 - AFTER ANALYSIS: Averaged

50% Pre-empted AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 22 49 1,320 857 2,248 Delay 50.8 52.3 15.0 16.8 16.8 LOS EEBB B

47% Pre-empted PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 49 36 987 1,200 2,272 Delay 48.4 47.5 13.2 14.1 14.9 LOS DDBB B

CHANGE

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Volume -19 5 250 -30 206 Delay 17.8 19.5 3.4 3.8 3.7 LOS decline decline - - -

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Volume -12 18 -229 37 -186 Delay -0.8 0.7 1.4 3.1 2.4 LOS - - - decline -

COMMENTS: The "after" LRT pre-emption was mimicked by adding a eastbound/westbound exclusive left phase (existing lefts were minimal and added to the thru movement). DUKE STREET & BUTE STREET

2007 - BEFORE ANALYSIS Unsignalized AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 44 49 95 205 393 Delay 8.0 7.8 8.0 8.5 n/a LOS AAAA n/a

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 92 43 112 376 623 Delay 9.1 8.6 8.7 11.5 n/a LOS AAAB n/a

2014 - AFTER ANALYSIS Signalized AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 78 47 132 174 431 Delay 15.0 14.5 11.3 19.7 15.7 LOS BBBB B

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 132 39 121 240 532 Delay 17.2 15.5 9.1 18.3 15.7 LOS BBAB B

CHANGE

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 34 -2 37 -31 38 Delay 7 6.7 3.3 11.2 n/a LOS decline decline decline - n/a

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 40 -4 9 -136 -91 Delay 8.1 6.9 0.4 6.8 n/a LOS decline decline - decline n/a

COMMENTS: This intersection was unsignalized before the LRT was installed and was signalized as a part of the project. The LRT at this intersection is not pre-empted and moves with the signal operation. BRAMBLETON AVENUE & DUKE STREET

2007 - BEFORE ANALYSIS

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 1,338 2,267 139 792 4,536 Delay 14.2 3.2 50.3 50.7 16.2 LOS BADD B

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 1,784 1,122 282 1,784 4,972 Delay 19.8 2.2 53.3 1646.5 601.4 LOS BADF F

2014 - AFTER ANALYSIS

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 977 2,240 266 399 3,882 Delay 20.4 5.1 77.9 249.1 39.0 LOS CAEF D

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 2,090 1,300 170 542 4,102 Delay 42.2 10.2 61.9 132.2 44.8 LOS DBEF D

CHANGE

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume -361 -27 127 -393 -654 Delay 6.2 1.9 27.6 198.4 22.8 LOS decline - decline decline decline

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 306 178 -112 -1242 -870 Delay 22.4 8 8.6 -1514.3 -556.6 LOS decline decline decline - improve

COMMENTS: BALLENTINE BLVD & I-264 WB RAMPS

2007 - BEFORE ANALYSIS

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume - 563 1,049 1,055 2,667 Delay - 91.6 8.0 10.5 26.6 LOS - F A B C

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume - 563 788 1,454 2,805 Delay - 110.4 6.2 11.6 29.9 LOS - F A B C

2014 - AFTER ANALYSIS: without Pre-emption

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume - 429 820 841 2,090 Delay - 33.8 6.8 12.2 14.5 LOS - C A B B

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume - 305 826 1,277 2,408 Delay - 31.1 4.4 10.5 11.0 LOS - C A B B

2014 - AFTER ANALYSIS: with Pre-emption

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume - 429 820 841 2,090 Delay - 63.1 11.3 19.7 25.3 LOS - EBB C

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume - 305 826 1,277 2,408 Delay - 37.2 8.8 29.6 23.4 LOS - D A C C

LRT: 15 pre-emptions per hour AM & PM : 100s cycle length; 36 cycles/hour = 42% pre-empt/58% non-pre-empt BALLENTINE BLVD & I-264 WB RAMPS

2014 - AFTER ANALYSIS: Averaged

42% Pre-empted AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume - 429 820 841 2,090 Delay - 46.1 8.7 15.4 19.0 LOS - EAB B

42% Pre-empted PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume - 305 826 1,277 2,408 Delay - 33.7 6.2 18.5 16.2 LOS - D A B B

CHANGE

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume - -134 -229 -214 -577 Delay - -45.5 0.7 4.9 -7.6 LOS - improve - - -

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume - -258 38 -177 -397 Delay - -79.3 -1.8 -1.1 -18.9 LOS - improve - - -

COMMENTS: The westbound ramps, eastbound ramps, and Westminster Avenue operate on one controller with phasing set-up that can't be directly analyzed by HCS. To provide a comparison, the movements on the north side of the interchange at the westbound ramps were analyzed as a stand alone intersection. It is noted that traffic volumes may not be entirely representative at this intersection because of queuing from the south side of the interchange limiting movement. The "after" LRT pre-emption was mimicked by adding an exclusive eastbound phase and the delay was recalulated excluding the eastbound movement. BALLENTINE BLVD & I-264 EB RAMPS/WESTMINSTER AVE

2007 - BEFORE ANALYSIS Unsignalized AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 730 159 405 578 1,872 Delay 727.8 50.3 20.7 29.3 301.6 LOS FDCC F

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 412 179 433 1,171 2,195 Delay 246.4 54.4 20.9 213.8 168.9 LOS FDCF F

2014 - AFTER ANALYSIS Signalized AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 516 125 404 514 1,559 Delay 408.2 44.9 20.6 30.9 154.2 LOS FDCC F

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 489 251 639 734 2,113 Delay 370.5 96.1 23.2 63.2 126.1 LOS FFCE F

CHANGE

AM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume -214 -34 -1 -64 -313 Delay -319.6 -5.4 -0.1 1.6 -147.4 LOS - - - - -

PM Peak EB WB NB SB INT. TOTAL Factored Volume 77 72 206 -437 -82 Delay 124.1 41.7 2.3 -150.6 -42.8 LOS - decline - improve -

COMMENTS: The westbound ramps, eastbound ramps, and Westminster Avenue operate on one controller with phasing set-up that can't be directly analyzed by HCS. To provide a comparison, the movements on the south side of the interchange at westbound ramps and at Westminster Avenue were were analyzed together as a stand alone intersection. Due to geometric contraints, because it is a five-legged intersection, HSC can't directly analyze this intersection either. To provide some sort of before/after comparison, the intersection at the eastbound ramps was analyzed adding an exclusive movement representing Westminster Avenue. This is not exactly how the intersection operates but since the same methodology was applied for the "before" and "after" LRT condition, the comparsison is the same constraints. However, because the intersection can not exactly be modeled, the intersection probably operates worse than was calculated here. Further, the LRT pre-emption does impact this intersection but HCS can't analyze it because there are no availble phases remaining to mimic that condition. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 239: St Pauls Blvd & City Hall Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 40 171 13 302 734 507 62 234 67 335 625 215 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 190.0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 186 14 328 798 0 67 254 73 364 679 234 Adj No. of Lanes 131131121230 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 84 363 113 397 1259 392 233 1567 701 451 1662 564 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.22 0.25 0.00 0.13 0.44 0.44 0.13 0.44 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 5085 1583 1774 5085 1583 1774 3539 1583 3442 3754 1274 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 186 14 328 798 0 67 254 73 364 612 301 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1695 1583 1774 1695 1583 1774 1770 1583 1721 1695 1638 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 4.3 1.0 21.5 17.1 0.0 4.2 5.3 1.4 12.5 15.0 15.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 4.3 1.0 21.5 17.1 0.0 4.2 5.3 1.4 12.5 15.0 15.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 84 363 113 397 1259 392 233 1567 701 451 1501 725 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.51 0.12 0.83 0.63 0.00 0.29 0.16 0.10 0.81 0.41 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 204 584 182 436 1259 392 233 1567 701 451 1501 725 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.7 54.6 53.1 45.1 41.0 0.0 47.9 20.4 3.5 51.5 23.1 23.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.7 1.1 0.5 11.5 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.3 10.3 0.8 1.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 2.1 0.5 11.7 8.1 0.0 2.1 2.6 1.4 6.6 7.1 7.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.5 55.7 53.6 56.6 42.0 0.0 48.5 20.6 3.8 61.8 23.9 25.6 LnGrp LOS EEDED DCAECC Approach Vol, veh/h 243 1126 394 1277 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.6 46.2 22.3 35.1 Approach LOS E D C D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.0 58.0 9.8 34.2 20.0 66.0 31.3 12.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 52.0 12.0 28.0 14.0 52.0 28.0 12.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 17.5 4.9 19.1 14.5 7.3 23.5 6.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 4.8 0.0 3.8 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 39.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 239: St Pauls Blvd & City Hall Ave

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBT EBL WBT SBL NBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None None None C-Max None None Maximum Split (s) 20 58 18 34 20 58 34 18 Maximum Split (%) 15.4% 44.6% 13.8% 26.2% 15.4% 44.6% 26.2% 13.8% Minimum Split (s) 22 33 10 24 22 33 10 24 Yellow Time (s) 44444444 All-Red Time (s) 22222222 Minimum Initial (s) 44444444 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7575 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20 13 20 13 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 64 6 84 102 6 26 102 84 End Time (s) 84 64 102 6 26 84 6 102 Yield/Force Off (s) 78 58 96 0 20 78 0 96 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 78 38 96 117 20 58 0 83 Local Start Time (s) 6 78 26 44 78 98 44 26 Local Yield (s) 20 0 38 72 92 20 72 38 Local Yield 170(s) 20 110 38 59 92 0 72 25 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 130 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 100 Offset: 58 (45%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBT, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 239: St Pauls Blvd & City Hall Ave

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 239: St Pauls Blvd & City Hall Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 103 1193 9 128 174 266 96 318 741 638 556 124 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 112 1297 10 139 189 0 104 346 805 693 604 135 Adj No. of Lanes 131131121230 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 171 786 245 216 917 285 526 1370 613 657 1176 258 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.18 0.00 0.30 0.39 0.39 0.19 0.28 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 5085 1583 1774 5085 1583 1774 3539 1583 3442 4174 917 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 112 1297 10 139 189 0 104 346 805 693 489 250 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1695 1583 1774 1695 1583 1774 1770 1583 1721 1695 1701 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.7 17.0 0.6 8.2 3.5 0.0 4.8 7.3 26.5 21.0 13.3 13.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.7 17.0 0.6 8.2 3.5 0.0 4.8 7.3 26.5 21.0 13.3 13.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 171 786 245 216 917 285 526 1370 613 657 955 479 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 1.65 0.04 0.64 0.21 0.00 0.20 0.25 1.31 1.05 0.51 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 274 786 245 500 1433 446 526 1370 613 657 955 479 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.0 46.5 39.6 46.0 38.4 0.0 28.9 22.9 13.1 44.5 33.1 33.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.2 298.3 0.1 3.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 152.3 50.4 2.0 4.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 3.5 29.6 0.3 4.2 1.6 0.0 2.4 3.6 37.3 14.5 6.5 7.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.2 344.8 39.6 49.2 38.5 0.0 29.1 23.3 165.4 94.9 35.1 37.8 LnGrp LOS DFDDD CCFFDD Approach Vol, veh/h 1419 328 1255 1432 Approach Delay, s/veh 319.6 43.0 114.9 64.5 Approach LOS F D F E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.6 35.0 14.6 23.8 25.0 46.6 17.4 21.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 29.0 15.0 29.0 19.0 23.0 29.0 15.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.8 15.7 8.7 5.5 23.0 28.5 10.2 19.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.4 2.9 0.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 158.8 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 239: St Pauls Blvd & City Hall Ave

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBT EBL WBT SBL NBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None None None C-Max None None Maximum Split (s) 19 35 21 35 25 29 35 21 Maximum Split (%) 17.3% 31.8% 19.1% 31.8% 22.7% 26.4% 31.8% 19.1% Minimum Split (s) 22 33 10 24 22 33 10 24 Yellow Time (s) 44444444 All-Red Time (s) 22222222 Minimum Initial (s) 44444444 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7575 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20 13 20 13 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 102 67 11 32 67 92 32 11 End Time (s) 11 102 32 67 92 11 67 32 Yield/Force Off (s) 5 96 26 61 86 5 61 26 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 5 76 26 48 86 95 61 13 Local Start Time (s) 6 81 25 46 81 106 46 25 Local Yield (s) 19 0 40 75 100 19 75 40 Local Yield 170(s) 19 90 40 62 100 109 75 27 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 100 Offset: 96 (87%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBT, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 239: St Pauls Blvd & City Hall Ave

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Ped Phase/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 49 274 0 0 367 235 0 100 0 124 0 53 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1881 1881 0 0 1881 1881 1900 1900 1900 1881 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 53 298 0 0 399 255 0 109 0 135 0 58 Adj No. of Lanes 120011111111 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 110011000111 Cap, veh/h 322 1703 0 0 581 695 153 161 137 225 236 201 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 1792 3668 0 0 1881 1599 1810 1900 1615 1792 1881 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 53 298 0 0 399 255 0 109 0 135 0 58 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1792 1787 0 0 1881 1599 1810 1900 1615 1792 1881 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 8.9 5.1 0.0 2.7 0.0 3.4 0.0 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 8.9 5.1 0.0 2.7 0.0 3.4 0.0 1.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 322 1703 0 0 581 695 153 161 137 225 236 201 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.37 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 434 2763 0 0 1022 1070 1437 1509 1282 749 786 668 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.4 7.2 0.0 0.0 14.5 9.1 0.0 21.3 0.0 19.8 0.0 19.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.3 0.0 4.9 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 4.8 2.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.7 7.2 0.0 0.0 16.0 9.4 0.0 26.2 0.0 22.3 0.0 19.8 LnGrp LOS BA BA C C B Approach Vol, veh/h 351 654 109 193 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.7 13.4 26.2 21.6 Approach LOS A B C C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.8 12.0 8.0 20.8 7.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 37.0 20.0 5.0 26.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 5.4 2.9 10.9 3.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.6 0.6 0.0 3.9 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.2 HCM 2010 LOS B

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Ped Phase/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

Phase Number 24568 Movement EBTL SBTL EBL WBT NBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Recall Mode None Min None Min Min Maximum Split (s) 43 26 11 32 41 Maximum Split (%) 39.1% 23.6% 10.0% 29.1% 37.3% Minimum Split (s) 22 22 10 22 20.5 Yellow Time (s) 44443 All-Red Time (s) 22220 Minimum Initial (s) 44444 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 0 43 0 11 69 End Time (s) 43 69 11 43 0 Yield/Force Off (s) 37 63 5 37 107 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 26 63 5 37 107 Local Start Time (s) 0 43 0 11 69 Local Yield (s) 37 63 5 37 107 Local Yield 170(s) 26 63 5 37 107 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Uncoordinated Natural Cycle 75

Splits and Phases: 3: Ped Phase/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Ped Phase/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 107 550 0 0 162 256 0 100 0 243 0 58 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1881 1881 0 0 1881 1881 1900 1900 1900 1881 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 116 598 0 0 176 278 0 109 0 264 0 63 Adj No. of Lanes 120011111111 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 110011000111 Cap, veh/h 424 1479 0 0 462 716 151 159 135 362 380 323 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1792 3668 0 0 1881 1599 1810 1900 1615 1792 1881 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 116 598 0 0 176 278 0 109 0 264 0 63 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1792 1787 0 0 1881 1599 1810 1900 1615 1792 1881 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 5.9 0.0 0.0 3.9 5.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 6.9 0.0 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 5.9 0.0 0.0 3.9 5.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 6.9 0.0 1.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 424 1479 0 0 462 716 151 159 135 362 380 323 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.39 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 446 2294 0 0 868 1060 1379 1448 1231 898 943 802 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.5 10.3 0.0 0.0 15.6 9.2 0.0 22.2 0.0 18.6 0.0 16.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 5.2 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.1 3.5 0.0 1.7 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.9 10.5 0.0 0.0 16.2 9.6 0.0 27.4 0.0 21.5 0.0 16.8 LnGrp LOS BB BA C C B Approach Vol, veh/h 714 454 109 327 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.7 12.1 27.4 20.6 Approach LOS B B C C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.6 16.1 8.4 18.3 7.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.0 25.0 4.0 23.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.9 8.9 4.2 7.8 3.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.2 1.2 0.0 4.5 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.2 HCM 2010 LOS B

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Ped Phase/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

Phase Number 24568 Movement EBTL SBTL EBL WBT NBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Recall Mode None Min None Min Min Maximum Split (s) 38 31 9 29 41 Maximum Split (%) 34.5% 28.2% 8.2% 26.4% 37.3% Minimum Split (s) 22 22 8 22 20.5 Yellow Time (s) 44343 All-Red Time (s) 22220 Minimum Initial (s) 44244 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 0 38 0 9 69 End Time (s) 38 69 9 38 0 Yield/Force Off (s) 32 63 4 32 107 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 21 63 4 32 107 Local Start Time (s) 0 38 0 9 69 Local Yield (s) 32 63 4 32 107 Local Yield 170(s) 21 63 4 32 107 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Uncoordinated Natural Cycle 75

Splits and Phases: 3: Ped Phase/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 166: Monticello Ave & Freemason St

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 16 15 14 4 47 63 29 191 13 19 151 49 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17 16 15 4 51 68 32 208 14 21 164 53 Adj No. of Lanes 010010020121 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 135 100 71 64 99 128 324 2044 139 938 2597 1162 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.73 0.73 0.70 0.73 0.73 0.73 Sat Flow, veh/h 413 727 518 32 722 933 343 2785 189 1154 3539 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 48 0 0 123 0 0 131 0 123 21 164 53 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1659 0 0 1687 0 0 1655 0 1662 1154 1770 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.3 0.8 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.3 1.7 0.8 0.6 Prop In Lane 0.35 0.31 0.03 0.55 0.24 0.11 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 306 0 0 291 0 0 1287 0 1219 938 2597 1162 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.06 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 810 0 0 846 0 0 1287 0 1219 938 2597 1162 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.0 0.0 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.2 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.3 LnGrp LOS C C A AAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 48 123 254 238 Approach Delay, s/veh 24.2 26.4 2.5 2.4 Approach LOS C C A A Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 49.5 12.5 49.5 12.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 27.0 23.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 3.5 3.7 6.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.1 0.7 2.1 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 8.5 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 166: Monticello Ave & Freemason St

Phase Number 2468 Movement NBTL EBTL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode C-Max None C-Max None Maximum Split (s) 29 33 29 33 Maximum Split (%) 46.8% 53.2% 46.8% 53.2% Minimum Split (s) 22 33 22 33 Yellow Time (s) 4444 All-Red Time (s) 2222 Minimum Initial (s) 4444 Vehicle Extension (s) 3333 Minimum Gap (s) 3333 Time Before Reduce (s) 0000 Time To Reduce (s) 0000 Walk Time (s) 6 6 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20 20 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 0 29 0 29 End Time (s) 29 0 29 0 Yield/Force Off (s) 23 56 23 56 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 23 36 23 36 Local Start Time (s) 39 6 39 6 Local Yield (s) 0 33 0 33 Local Yield 170(s) 0 13 0 13 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 62 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 55 Offset: 23 (37%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 166: Monticello Ave & Freemason St

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 166: Monticello Ave & Freemason St

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 47 64 34 13 12 30 24 342 24 50 249 47 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 51 70 37 14 13 33 26 372 26 54 271 51 Adj No. of Lanes 010010020121 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 160 137 64 122 83 152 162 2116 145 762 2431 1088 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.69 0.69 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 437 817 384 247 496 908 129 3080 212 983 3539 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 158 0 0 60 0 0 220 0 204 54 271 51 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1638 0 0 1651 0 0 1763 0 1658 983 1770 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.8 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.32 0.23 0.23 0.55 0.12 0.13 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 361 0 0 358 0 0 1284 0 1139 762 2431 1088 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.18 0.07 0.11 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 734 0 0 717 0 0 1284 0 1139 762 2431 1088 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.2 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 3.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 LnGrp LOS C C A AAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 158 60 424 376 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.0 20.5 3.4 0.1 Approach LOS C C A A Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.8 13.2 41.8 13.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 20.0 23.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 6.8 4.7 3.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.5 0.7 3.5 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.1 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 166: Monticello Ave & Freemason St

Phase Number 2468 Movement NBTL EBTL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode C-Max None C-Max None Maximum Split (s) 29 26 29 26 Maximum Split (%) 52.7% 47.3% 52.7% 47.3% Minimum Split (s) 22 33 22 33 Yellow Time (s) 4444 All-Red Time (s) 2222 Minimum Initial (s) 4444 Vehicle Extension (s) 3333 Minimum Gap (s) 3333 Time Before Reduce (s) 0000 Time To Reduce (s) 0000 Walk Time (s) 6 6 Flash Dont Walk (s) 21 21 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 27 1 27 1 End Time (s) 1 27 1 27 Yield/Force Off (s) 50 21 50 21 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 50 0 50 0 Local Start Time (s) 32 6 32 6 Local Yield (s) 0 26 0 26 Local Yield 170(s) 0505 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 55 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 55 Offset: 50 (91%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 166: Monticello Ave & Freemason St

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 164: Monticello Ave & Charlotte St

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 5 9 20 61 0 73 0 128 18 36 280 0 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 0 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 10 22 66 0 79 0 139 20 39 304 0 Adj No. of Lanes 110110020120 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222022222 Cap, veh/h 649 245 540 699 0 748 0 1415 200 589 1609 0 Arrive On Green 0.47 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.45 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1314 519 1142 1372 0 1583 0 3207 441 1222 3632 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 5 0 32 66 0 79 0 78 81 39 304 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1314 0 1661 1372 0 1583 0 1770 1785 1222 1770 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 0.0 1.2 3.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 2.8 2.9 2.1 5.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 0.0 1.2 4.2 0.0 3.1 0.0 2.8 2.9 4.9 5.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.25 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 649 0 785 699 0 748 0 804 811 589 1609 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.19 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 649 0 785 699 0 748 0 804 811 589 1609 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.1 0.0 16.0 16.7 0.0 16.7 0.0 17.1 17.3 18.6 17.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.5 0.7 2.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.1 0.0 16.1 17.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 17.4 17.5 18.8 18.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS B BB B BBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 37 145 159 343 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.2 17.0 17.4 18.2 Approach LOS BBBB Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 54.0 56.0 54.0 56.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 48.0 50.0 48.0 50.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 5.4 7.6 6.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.4 0.8 2.4 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.7 HCM 2010 LOS B

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 164: Monticello Ave & Charlotte St

Phase Number 2468 Movement NBT EBTL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode C-Max Max C-Max Max Maximum Split (s) 54 56 54 56 Maximum Split (%) 49.1% 50.9% 49.1% 50.9% Minimum Split (s) 27 27 27 27 Yellow Time (s) 4444 All-Red Time (s) 2222 Minimum Initial (s) 10 10 10 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3333 Minimum Gap (s) 6363 Time Before Reduce (s) 3333 Time To Reduce (s) 0000 Walk Time (s) 5555 Flash Dont Walk (s) 16 16 16 16 Dual Entry No No No No Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 0 54 0 54 End Time (s) 54 0 54 0 Yield/Force Off (s) 48 104 48 104 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 32 88 32 88 Local Start Time (s) 62 6 62 6 Local Yield (s) 0 56 0 56 Local Yield 170(s) 94 40 94 40 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 55 Offset: 48 (44%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 164: Monticello Ave & Charlotte St

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 164: Monticello Ave & Charlotte St

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 13 22 37 29 0 32 0 319 35 86 304 0 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 0 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 14 24 40 32 0 35 0 347 38 93 330 0 Adj No. of Lanes 110110020120 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222022222 Cap, veh/h 326 132 219 302 0 331 0 2313 252 780 2542 0 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.00 0.19 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1368 629 1049 1332 0 1583 0 3313 350 994 3632 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 14 0 64 32 0 35 0 190 195 93 330 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1368 0 1678 1332 0 1583 0 1770 1801 994 1770 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 0.0 3.5 2.2 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 0.0 3.5 5.7 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.19 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 326 0 351 302 0 331 0 1271 1293 780 2542 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.04 0.00 0.18 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 326 0 351 302 0 331 0 1271 1293 780 2542 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.4 0.0 36.3 38.1 0.0 36.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 1.7 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.9 1.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.6 0.0 37.4 38.8 0.0 36.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 5.1 4.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS D DD D AAAA Approach Vol, veh/h 78 67 385 423 Approach Delay, s/veh 37.3 37.7 0.2 5.0 Approach LOS D D A A Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 83.0 27.0 83.0 27.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 77.0 21.0 77.0 21.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.5 5.2 7.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.2 0.5 4.2 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 8.0 HCM 2010 LOS A

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 164: Monticello Ave & Charlotte St

Phase Number 2468 Movement NBT EBTL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode C-Max Max C-Max Max Maximum Split (s) 83 27 83 27 Maximum Split (%) 75.5% 24.5% 75.5% 24.5% Minimum Split (s) 27 27 27 27 Yellow Time (s) 4444 All-Red Time (s) 2222 Minimum Initial (s) 10 10 10 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3333 Minimum Gap (s) 6363 Time Before Reduce (s) 3333 Time To Reduce (s) 0000 Walk Time (s) 5555 Flash Dont Walk (s) 16 16 16 16 Dual Entry No No No No Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 33 6 33 6 End Time (s) 6 33 6 33 Yield/Force Off (s) 0 27 0 27 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 94 11 94 11 Local Start Time (s) 33 6 33 6 Local Yield (s) 0 27 0 27 Local Yield 170(s) 94 11 94 11 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 55 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 164: Monticello Ave & Charlotte St

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 18: Boush St & Bute St

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 9 6 22 2 26 13 108 869 7 7 809 0 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 10 7 24 2 28 14 117 945 8 8 879 0 Adj No. of Lanes 010010120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 113 89 228 40 289 137 454 2228 19 395 2073 0 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.06 0.62 0.60 0.03 0.59 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 295 364 930 22 1176 559 1774 3597 30 1774 3632 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 0 0 44 0 0 117 465 488 8 879 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1589 0 0 1756 0 0 1774 1770 1857 1774 1770 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 14.9 14.9 0.2 15.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 14.9 14.9 0.2 15.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.24 0.59 0.05 0.32 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 431 0 0 465 0 0 454 1096 1150 395 2073 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.42 0.42 0.02 0.42 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 431 0 0 465 0 0 509 1096 1150 510 2073 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.6 0.0 0.0 32.4 0.0 0.0 8.3 10.8 10.8 8.9 12.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 7.6 8.0 0.1 7.5 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.0 0.0 0.0 32.8 0.0 0.0 8.4 12.0 12.0 8.9 13.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C ABBAB Approach Vol, veh/h 41 44 1070 887 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.0 32.8 11.6 13.0 Approach LOS C C B B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.9 72.1 31.0 10.6 68.4 31.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 59.0 25.0 8.0 59.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 16.9 4.1 4.6 17.1 4.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 19.2 0.3 0.1 19.2 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.1 HCM 2010 LOS B

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 18: Boush St & Bute St

Phase Number 124568 Movement SBL NBTL EBTL NBL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max Max None C-Max Max Maximum Split (s) 14 65 31 14 65 31 Maximum Split (%) 12.7% 59.1% 28.2% 12.7% 59.1% 28.2% Minimum Split (s) 10 28 28 10 28 28 Yellow Time (s) 444444 All-Red Time (s) 222222 Minimum Initial (s) 4 15 10 4 15 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 243243 Minimum Gap (s) 243243 Time Before Reduce (s) 243243 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 15 15 15 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 77 91 46 77 91 46 End Time (s) 91 46 77 91 46 77 Yield/Force Off (s) 85 40 71 85 40 71 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 85 25 56 85 25 56 Local Start Time (s) 37 51 6 37 51 6 Local Yield (s) 45 0 31 45 0 31 Local Yield 170(s) 45 95 16 45 95 16 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 70 Offset: 40 (36%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 18: Boush St & Bute St

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 18: Boush St & Bute St

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 21 10 25 2 6 8 37 1074 8 42 1028 0 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 23 11 27 2 7 9 40 1167 9 46 1117 0 Adj No. of Lanes 010010120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 125 65 125 44 134 151 396 2534 20 379 2495 0 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.03 0.70 0.69 0.04 0.71 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 511 362 694 97 743 840 1774 3600 28 1774 3632 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 61 0 0 18 0 0 40 574 602 46 1117 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1567 0 0 1679 0 0 1774 1770 1858 1774 1770 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 21.3 21.3 1.0 20.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 21.3 21.3 1.0 20.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.38 0.44 0.11 0.50 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 315 0 0 329 0 0 396 1246 1308 379 2495 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.46 0.46 0.12 0.45 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 315 0 0 329 0 0 452 1246 1308 433 2495 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.7 0.0 0.0 51.4 0.0 0.0 6.7 9.7 9.7 6.9 9.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 10.8 11.3 0.5 10.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.0 0.0 0.0 51.7 0.0 0.0 6.8 11.0 10.9 6.9 10.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D ABBAB Approach Vol, veh/h 61 18 1216 1163 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.0 51.7 10.8 9.9 Approach LOS D D B A Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 109.6 31.0 9.2 109.8 31.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 99.0 25.0 8.0 99.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.0 23.3 6.7 2.9 22.4 3.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 35.7 0.2 0.0 35.9 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 11.7 HCM 2010 LOS B

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 18: Boush St & Bute St

Phase Number 124568 Movement SBL NBTL EBTL NBL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max Max None C-Max Max Maximum Split (s) 14 105 31 14 105 31 Maximum Split (%) 9.3% 70.0% 20.7% 9.3% 70.0% 20.7% Minimum Split (s) 10 28 28 10 28 28 Yellow Time (s) 444444 All-Red Time (s) 222222 Minimum Initial (s) 4 15 10 4 15 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 243243 Minimum Gap (s) 243243 Time Before Reduce (s) 243243 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 15 15 15 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 77 91 46 77 91 46 End Time (s) 91 46 77 91 46 77 Yield/Force Off (s) 85 40 71 85 40 71 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 85 25 56 85 25 56 Local Start Time (s) 37 51 6 37 51 6 Local Yield (s) 45 0 31 45 0 31 Local Yield 170(s) 45 135 16 45 135 16 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 150 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 70 Offset: 40 (27%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 18: Boush St & Bute St

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 AWSC 93: Duke St & Bute St

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.2 Intersection LOS A Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Vol, veh/h 0 24 12 8 0 2 28 19 0 11 77 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 26 13 9 0 2 30 21 0 12 84 8 Number of Lanes 001000100010

Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8 7.8 8 HCM LOS A A A

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 12% 55% 4% 19% Vol Thru, % 81% 27% 57% 44% Vol Right, % 7% 18% 39% 37% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 95 44 49 205 LT Vol 11 24 2 39 Through Vol 77 12 28 91 RT Vol 7 8 19 75 Lane Flow Rate 103 48 53 223 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.125 0.062 0.066 0.248 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.374 4.704 4.474 4.112 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 823 765 804 878 Service Time 2.382 2.712 2.481 2.112 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.125 0.063 0.066 0.254 HCM Control Delay 8 8 7.8 8.5 HCM Lane LOS AAAA HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.2 0.2 1

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 93: Duke St & Bute St

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 0 39 91 75 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 42 99 82 Number of Lanes 0010

Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 8.5 HCM LOS A

Lane

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 AWSC 93: Duke St & Bute St

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.4 Intersection LOS B Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Vol, veh/h 0 45 25 22 0 5 28 10 0 18 86 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 49 27 24 0 5 30 11 0 20 93 9 Number of Lanes 001000100010

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 16% 49% 12% 15% Vol Thru, % 77% 27% 65% 57% Vol Right, % 7% 24% 23% 28% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 112 92 43 376 LT Vol 18 45 5 55 Through Vol 86 25 28 216 RT Vol 8 22 10 105 Lane Flow Rate 122 100 47 409 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.16 0.143 0.067 0.49 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.738 5.133 5.146 4.314 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 754 695 692 834 Service Time 2.786 3.188 3.207 2.349 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.162 0.144 0.068 0.49 HCM Control Delay 8.7 9.1 8.6 11.5 HCM Lane LOS AAAB HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.5 0.2 2.7

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 93: Duke St & Bute St

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 0 55 216 105 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 60 235 114 Number of Lanes 0010

Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 11.5 HCM LOS B

Lane

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 234: Duke St & Brambleton Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 58 1132 41 71 1913 102 55 62 11 519 166 44 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1827 1827 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 63 1230 45 77 2079 111 60 67 12 564 180 48 Adj No. of Lanes 140130110210 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222444 Cap, veh/h 264 3504 128 361 2721 145 211 126 23 689 230 61 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.55 0.53 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 6394 233 1774 4944 263 1774 1539 276 3375 1391 371 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 63 924 351 77 1423 767 60 0 79 564 0 228 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1602 1822 1774 1695 1816 1774 0 1814 1688 0 1761 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 11.8 11.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 4.6 13.3 0.0 13.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 11.8 11.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 4.6 13.3 0.0 13.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.21 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 264 2634 998 361 1866 1000 211 0 148 689 0 291 V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.35 0.35 0.21 0.76 0.77 0.28 0.00 0.53 0.82 0.00 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 308 2634 998 433 1866 1000 243 0 379 689 0 368 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.9 13.9 14.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 47.9 0.0 48.6 42.3 0.0 44.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.2 2.3 4.3 0.7 0.0 2.9 7.7 0.0 8.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 0.8 5.3 6.2 0.9 0.6 1.2 1.8 0.0 2.4 9.0 0.0 7.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.4 14.3 15.0 9.2 2.3 4.3 48.6 0.0 51.6 50.0 0.0 52.5 LnGrp LOS ABBAAAD DD D Approach Vol, veh/h 1338 2267 139 792 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.2 3.2 50.3 50.7 Approach LOS B A D D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.5 64.3 22.2 13.0 10.3 64.5 13.0 22.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 47.0 9.0 21.0 7.0 49.0 9.0 21.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 13.9 15.3 6.6 3.6 2.0 5.5 15.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 30.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 41.6 0.0 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 16.2 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 234: Duke St & Brambleton Ave

Phase Number 12345678 Movement WBL EBTL SBL NBTL EBL WBTL NBL SBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None None None C-Max None None Maximum Split (s) 15 53 15 27 13 55 15 27 Maximum Split (%) 13.6% 48.2% 13.6% 24.5% 11.8% 50.0% 13.6% 24.5% Minimum Split (s) 11 30 13 20 11 30 13 20 Yellow Time (s) 44444444 All-Red Time (s) 22222222 Minimum Initial (s) 5 10 7 7 5 10 7 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 34333433 Minimum Gap (s) 34333433 Time Before Reduce (s) 34333433 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 6666 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 19 11 19 Dual Entry No No No Yes No No Yes No Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 62 77 47 20 62 75 20 35 End Time (s) 77 20 62 47 75 20 35 62 Yield/Force Off (s) 71 14 56 41 69 14 29 56 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 71 3 56 22 69 3 29 37 Local Start Time (s) 48 63 33 6 48 61 6 21 Local Yield (s) 57 0 42 27 55 0 15 42 Local Yield 170(s) 57 99 42 8 55 99 15 23 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 14 (13%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 234: Duke St & Brambleton Ave

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 234: Duke St & Brambleton Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 50 1562 29 110 865 57 93 125 41 50 1562 29 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 54 1698 32 120 940 62 101 136 45 54 1698 32 Adj No. of Lanes 140130110210 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 441 3237 61 274 2480 163 227 181 60 668 364 7 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.50 0.48 0.13 1.00 0.98 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 6524 123 1774 4875 321 1774 1341 444 3442 1822 34 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 54 1251 479 120 653 349 101 0 181 54 0 1730 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1602 1841 1774 1695 1806 1774 0 1784 1721 0 1857 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 19.5 19.5 3.5 0.0 0.1 5.9 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 22.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 19.5 19.5 3.5 0.0 0.1 5.9 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 22.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 441 2384 913 274 1725 919 227 0 241 668 0 371 V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.52 0.52 0.44 0.38 0.38 0.45 0.00 0.75 0.08 0.00 4.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 505 2384 913 316 1725 919 323 0 260 819 0 371 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.4 18.9 18.9 13.1 0.0 0.1 45.5 0.0 46.1 39.2 0.0 44.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.8 2.2 1.0 0.6 1.1 1.4 0.0 10.9 0.1 0.0 1652.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 0.8 8.8 10.4 1.7 0.1 0.3 2.9 0.0 6.0 0.7 0.0 181.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.6 19.7 21.1 14.1 0.6 1.2 46.9 0.0 56.9 39.2 0.0 1696.6 LnGrp LOS BBCBAAD ED F Approach Vol, veh/h 1784 1122 282 1784 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.8 2.2 53.3 1646.5 Approach LOS B A D F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 58.6 21.2 18.8 10.0 60.0 14.0 26.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 44.0 20.0 14.0 8.0 44.0 14.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 21.5 2.0 12.8 3.6 2.1 7.9 24.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 18.8 15.5 0.1 0.0 31.0 0.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 601.4 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 234: Duke St & Brambleton Ave

Phase Number 12345678 Movement WBL EBTL SBL NBTL EBL WBTL NBL SBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None None None C-Max None None Maximum Split (s) 14 50 26 20 14 50 20 26 Maximum Split (%) 12.7% 45.5% 23.6% 18.2% 12.7% 45.5% 18.2% 23.6% Minimum Split (s) 11 30 13 20 11 30 13 20 Yellow Time (s) 44444444 All-Red Time (s) 22222222 Minimum Initial (s) 5 10 7 7 5 10 7 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 34333433 Minimum Gap (s) 34333433 Time Before Reduce (s) 34333433 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 6666 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 19 11 19 Dual Entry No No No Yes No No Yes No Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 77 91 51 31 77 91 31 51 End Time (s) 91 31 77 51 91 31 51 77 Yield/Force Off (s) 85 25 71 45 85 25 45 71 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 85 14 71 26 85 14 45 52 Local Start Time (s) 52 66 26 6 52 66 6 26 Local Yield (s) 60 0 46 20 60 0 20 46 Local Yield 170(s) 60 99 46 1 60 99 20 27 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated-Coordinated Natural Cycle 150 Offset: 25 (23%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 234: Duke St & Brambleton Ave

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 81 0 437 12 953 0 0 542 429 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1881 0 1881 1900 1900 0 0 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 88 0 475 13 1036 0 0 589 466 Adj No. of Lanes 101120021 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 101000011 Cap, veh/h 472 0 422 355 2063 0 0 1761 788 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.01 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 1792 0 1599 1810 3705 0 0 3668 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 88 0 475 13 1036 0 0 589 466 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1792 0 1599 1810 1805 0 0 1787 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 16.0 0.2 10.5 0.0 0.0 6.1 12.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 0.0 16.0 0.2 10.5 0.0 0.0 6.1 12.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 472 0 422 355 2063 0 0 1761 788 V/C Ratio(X) 0.19 0.00 1.13 0.04 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 472 0 422 809 4581 0 0 3181 1423 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.3 0.0 22.3 7.1 7.8 0.0 0.0 9.4 11.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 83.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 16.7 0.1 5.2 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.5 0.0 105.3 7.1 8.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 11.7 LnGrp LOS B FAA AB Approach Vol, veh/h 563 1049 1055 Approach Delay, s/veh 91.6 8.0 10.5 Approach LOS F A B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.8 35.9 40.7 20.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 * 6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 54.0 * 77 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 14.7 11.5 18.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 15.2 17.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.6 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

Phase Number 1236 Movement NBL SBT WBL NBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Recall Mode None Min None Min Maximum Split (s) 20 60 20 80 Maximum Split (%) 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 80.0% Minimum Split (s) 8 22 8 20.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4 3.5 3 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 2 0.5 0 Minimum Initial (s) 4444 Vehicle Extension (s) 3333 Minimum Gap (s) 3333 Time Before Reduce (s) 0000 Time To Reduce (s) 0000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 0 20 80 0 End Time (s) 20 80 0 80 Yield/Force Off (s) 16 74 96 77 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 16 74 96 77 Local Start Time (s) 80 0 60 80 Local Yield (s) 96 54 76 57 Local Yield 170(s) 96 54 76 57 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 100 Control Type Actuated-Uncoordinated Natural Cycle 50

Splits and Phases: 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 119 0 399 54 671 0 0 773 565 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1881 0 1881 1900 1900 0 0 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 129 0 434 59 729 0 0 840 614 Adj No. of Lanes 101120021 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 101000011 Cap, veh/h 409 0 365 318 2271 0 0 1905 852 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.04 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 1792 0 1599 1810 3705 0 0 3668 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 129 0 434 59 729 0 0 840 614 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1792 0 1599 1810 1805 0 0 1787 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.2 0.0 16.0 0.9 6.6 0.0 0.0 10.1 20.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 0.0 16.0 0.9 6.6 0.0 0.0 10.1 20.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 409 0 365 318 2271 0 0 1905 852 V/C Ratio(X) 0.32 0.00 1.19 0.19 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.72 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 409 0 365 660 3965 0 0 2753 1232 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.5 0.0 27.1 7.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 12.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 109.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 0.0 18.1 0.5 3.3 0.0 0.0 4.9 9.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.9 0.0 136.4 7.3 6.1 0.0 0.0 10.1 13.6 LnGrp LOS C FAA BB Approach Vol, veh/h 563 788 1454 Approach Delay, s/veh 110.4 6.2 11.6 Approach LOS F A B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.7 43.4 50.1 20.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 * 6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 54.0 * 77 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 22.4 7.6 18.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 15.0 18.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 29.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

Splits and Phases: 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Ballentine Blvd & I-264 EB Ramp/Westminster Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 607 0 64 5 0 142 0 287 86 229 303 0 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1937 1900 1900 1863 1900 0 1863 1900 1863 1863 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 660 0 70 5 0 154 0 312 93 249 329 0 Adj No. of Lanes 010010020210 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222022220 Cap, veh/h 264 0 28 8 0 246 0 1107 325 379 1043 0 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.11 0.56 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1649 0 175 50 0 1539 0 2794 792 3442 1863 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 730 0 0 159 0 0 0 203 202 249 329 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1824 0 0 1589 0 0 0 1770 1723 1721 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 7.9 6.9 9.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 7.9 6.9 9.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.90 0.10 0.03 0.97 0.00 0.46 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 292 0 0 254 0 0 0 726 706 379 1043 0 V/C Ratio(X) 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.29 0.66 0.32 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 292 0 0 254 0 0 0 726 706 379 1043 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.0 0.0 0.0 39.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.7 19.7 42.7 11.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 685.8 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 8.7 0.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 63.6 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 3.9 3.7 5.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 727.8 0.0 0.0 50.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.6 20.7 51.3 12.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D CCDB Approach Vol, veh/h 730 159 405 578 Approach Delay, s/veh 727.8 50.3 20.7 29.3 Approach LOS F D C C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 45.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 41.0 16.0 56.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.9 9.9 18.0 11.4 11.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 2.6 0.0 3.1 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 301.6 HCM 2010 LOS F

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 6: Ballentine Blvd & I-264 EB Ramp/Westminster Ave

Phase Number 12468 Movement SBL NBT EBTL SBT WBTL Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 15 45 20 60 20 Maximum Split (%) 15.0% 45.0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% Minimum Split (s) 8 20 20 20 20 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Minimum Initial (s) 44444 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000 Walk Time (s) 5555 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry No Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 30 85 45 85 65 End Time (s) 45 30 65 45 85 Yield/Force Off (s) 41 26 61 41 81 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 41 15 50 30 70 Local Start Time (s) 45 0 60 0 80 Local Yield (s) 56 41 76 56 96 Local Yield 170(s) 56 30 65 45 85 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 100 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 85 (85%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Splits and Phases: 6: Ballentine Blvd & I-264 EB Ramp/Westminster Ave

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Ballentine Blvd & I-264 EB Ramp/Westminster Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 343 0 36 17 0 148 0 345 53 595 482 0 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1937 1900 1900 1863 1900 0 1863 1900 1863 1863 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 373 0 39 18 0 161 0 375 58 647 524 0 Adj No. of Lanes 010010020210 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222022220 Cap, veh/h 264 0 28 26 0 230 0 1262 194 379 1043 0 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.11 0.56 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1652 0 173 161 0 1440 0 3170 472 3442 1863 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 412 0 0 179 0 0 0 214 219 647 524 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1824 0 0 1601 0 0 0 1770 1779 1721 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 8.3 11.0 17.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 8.3 11.0 17.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.91 0.09 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.27 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 292 0 0 256 0 0 0 726 730 379 1043 0 V/C Ratio(X) 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 1.71 0.50 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 292 0 0 256 0 0 0 726 730 379 1043 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.0 0.0 0.0 39.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.8 19.8 44.5 13.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 204.4 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 330.1 1.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 24.6 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 4.3 22.6 9.2 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 246.4 0.0 0.0 54.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.8 20.9 374.6 15.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D CCFB Approach Vol, veh/h 412 179 433 1171 Approach Delay, s/veh 246.4 54.4 20.9 213.8 Approach LOS F D C F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 45.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 41.0 16.0 56.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.0 10.3 18.0 19.2 12.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.8 0.0 7.0 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 168.9 HCM 2010 LOS F

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 6: Ballentine Blvd & I-264 EB Ramp/Westminster Ave

Splits and Phases: 6: Ballentine Blvd & I-264 EB Ramp/Westminster Ave

2007 BEFORE LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 239: St Pauls Blvd & City Hall Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 25 143 16 215 645 858 16 86 33 350 433 119 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 29 165 18 248 743 0 18 99 38 403 499 137 Adj No. of Lanes 131131121230 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 118 915 285 367 1627 507 118 802 686 780 1546 413 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 5085 1583 1774 5085 1583 1774 3539 1583 3442 3997 1067 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 29 165 18 248 743 0 18 99 38 403 421 215 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1695 1583 1774 1695 1583 1774 1770 1583 1721 1695 1674 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 4.1 1.4 19.3 17.5 0.0 1.4 3.3 1.0 15.4 13.0 13.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 4.1 1.4 19.3 17.5 0.0 1.4 3.3 1.0 15.4 13.0 13.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 118 915 285 367 1627 507 118 802 686 780 1311 647 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.18 0.06 0.68 0.46 0.00 0.15 0.12 0.06 0.52 0.32 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 118 915 285 367 1627 507 118 802 686 780 1311 647 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.4 52.1 51.0 54.9 40.6 0.0 66.0 46.1 9.2 50.8 32.2 32.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.9 0.4 0.4 9.6 0.9 0.0 2.7 0.3 0.2 2.4 0.6 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 1.3 2.0 0.7 10.5 8.3 0.0 0.8 1.7 0.5 7.6 6.2 6.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.3 52.6 51.4 64.5 41.5 0.0 68.7 46.5 9.3 53.2 32.9 33.7 LnGrp LOS EDDED EDADCC Approach Vol, veh/h 212 991 155 1039 Approach Delay, s/veh 55.0 47.3 39.9 40.9 Approach LOS E D D D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.0 64.0 16.0 54.0 40.0 40.0 37.0 33.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 58.0 10.0 48.0 34.0 34.0 31.0 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 15.5 4.3 19.5 17.4 5.3 21.3 6.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 3.1 0.0 5.3 1.7 0.6 3.5 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 44.7 HCM 2010 LOS D

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 239: St Pauls Blvd & City Hall Ave

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBT EBL WBT SBL NBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 16 64 16 54 40 40 37 33 Maximum Split (%) 10.7% 42.7% 10.7% 36.0% 26.7% 26.7% 24.7% 22.0% Minimum Split (s) 11 33 11 33 11 33 11 33 Yellow Time (s) 44444444 All-Red Time (s) 22222222 Minimum Initial (s) 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20 20 20 20 Dual Entry No No No No No No No No Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 6 92 22 38 92 132 55 22 End Time (s) 22 6 38 92 132 22 92 55 Yield/Force Off (s) 16 0 32 86 126 16 86 49 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 16 130 32 66 126 146 86 29 Local Start Time (s) 6 92 22 38 92 132 55 22 Local Yield (s) 16 0 32 86 126 16 86 49 Local Yield 170(s) 16 130 32 66 126 146 86 29 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 150 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 100 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 239: St Pauls Blvd & City Hall Ave

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 239: St Pauls Blvd & City Hall Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 45 846 4 127 351 617 76 442 1118 499 452 80 Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 975 5 146 404 0 88 509 1288 575 521 92 Adj No. of Lanes 131131121230 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 228 1199 373 177 1053 328 177 1087 645 639 1714 297 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.21 0.00 0.10 0.31 0.31 0.19 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 5085 1583 1774 5085 1583 1774 3539 1583 3442 4363 756 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 52 975 5 146 404 0 88 509 1288 575 403 210 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1695 1583 1774 1695 1583 1774 1770 1583 1721 1695 1729 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 25.4 0.3 11.3 9.6 0.0 6.6 16.3 34.8 22.9 11.5 11.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 25.4 0.3 11.3 9.6 0.0 6.6 16.3 34.8 22.9 11.5 11.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 228 1199 373 177 1053 328 177 1087 645 639 1332 679 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.81 0.01 0.82 0.38 0.00 0.50 0.47 2.00 0.90 0.30 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 228 1199 373 177 1053 328 177 1087 645 639 1332 679 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.8 50.6 41.0 61.8 47.8 0.0 59.7 39.2 22.5 55.7 29.3 29.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 6.1 0.1 33.3 1.1 0.0 9.6 1.4 454.6 18.0 0.6 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 2.0 12.6 0.2 7.2 4.6 0.0 3.7 8.2 96.6 12.5 5.5 5.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.1 56.7 41.1 95.1 48.9 0.0 69.2 40.7 477.1 73.8 29.9 30.6 LnGrp LOS EEDFD EDFECC Approach Vol, veh/h 1032 550 1885 1188 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.6 61.1 340.2 51.2 Approach LOS E E F D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.0 61.0 24.0 35.0 32.0 49.0 20.0 39.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 55.0 18.0 29.0 26.0 43.0 14.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 13.8 5.7 11.6 24.9 36.8 13.3 27.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.5 2.9 0.1 2.4 0.4 5.1 0.2 2.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 170.6 HCM 2010 LOS F

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 239: St Pauls Blvd & City Hall Ave

Phase Number 12345678 Movement NBL SBT EBL WBT SBL NBT WBL EBT Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 20 61 24 35 32 49 20 39 Maximum Split (%) 14.3% 43.6% 17.1% 25.0% 22.9% 35.0% 14.3% 27.9% Minimum Split (s) 11 33 11 33 11 33 11 33 Yellow Time (s) 44444444 All-Red Time (s) 22222222 Minimum Initial (s) 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20 20 20 20 Dual Entry No No No No No No No No Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 65 4 85 109 4 36 124 85 End Time (s) 85 65 109 4 36 85 4 124 Yield/Force Off (s) 79 59 103 138 30 79 138 118 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 79 39 103 118 30 59 138 98 Local Start Time (s) 6 85 26 50 85 117 65 26 Local Yield (s) 20 0 44 79 111 20 79 59 Local Yield 170(s) 20 120 44 59 111 0 79 39 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 140 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 150 Offset: 59 (42%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 239: St Pauls Blvd & City Hall Ave

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Ped & LRT Phases/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 10 176 0 0 195 58 0 100 0 23 0 13 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1881 1881 0 0 1881 1881 1900 1900 1900 1900 1881 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 191 0 0 212 63 0 109 0 25 0 14 Adj No. of Lanes 120011111010 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 110011000111 Cap, veh/h 333 1361 0 0 390 504 195 205 174 119 0 66 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 Sat Flow, veh/h 1792 3668 0 0 1881 1599 1810 1900 1615 1101 0 616 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 191 0 0 212 63 0 109 0 39 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1792 1787 0 0 1881 1599 1810 1900 1615 1717 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 333 1361 0 0 390 504 195 205 174 185 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.12 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 795 4620 0 0 1621 1550 3167 3326 2827 1017 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.3 7.5 0.0 0.0 13.1 9.1 0.0 15.7 0.0 15.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.5 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.4 7.6 0.0 0.0 14.3 9.2 0.0 17.8 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS BA BA B B Approach Vol, veh/h 202 275 109 39 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.7 13.1 17.8 15.7 Approach LOS ABBB Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.1 10.0 6.4 13.7 7.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 48.0 22.0 10.0 32.0 65.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 2.8 2.2 5.7 3.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.1 0.1 0.0 2.0 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.4 HCM 2010 LOS B

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak with LRT Pre-emption Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Ped & LRT Phases/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

Phase Number 24568 Movement EBTL SBTL EBL WBT NBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Recall Mode None Min None Min Min Maximum Split (s) 54 28 16 38 68 Maximum Split (%) 36.0% 18.7% 10.7% 25.3% 45.3% Minimum Split (s) 22 22 10 22 20.5 Yellow Time (s) 44443 All-Red Time (s) 22220 Minimum Initial (s) 44444 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 0 54 0 16 82 End Time (s) 54 82 16 54 0 Yield/Force Off (s) 48 76 10 48 147 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 37 76 10 48 147 Local Start Time (s) 0 54 0 16 82 Local Yield (s) 48 76 10 48 147 Local Yield 170(s) 37 76 10 48 147 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 150 Control Type Actuated-Uncoordinated Natural Cycle 75

Splits and Phases: 3: Ped & LRT Phases/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak with LRT Pre-emption Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Ped Phase/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 10 176 0 0 195 58 0 100 0 23 0 13 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1881 1881 0 0 1881 1881 1900 1900 1900 1900 1881 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 191 0 0 212 63 0 109 0 25 0 14 Adj No. of Lanes 120011111010 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 110011000111 Cap, veh/h 335 1366 0 0 394 507 194 204 174 118 0 66 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 Sat Flow, veh/h 1792 3668 0 0 1881 1599 1810 1900 1615 1101 0 616 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 191 0 0 212 63 0 109 0 39 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1792 1787 0 0 1881 1599 1810 1900 1615 1717 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 335 1366 0 0 394 507 194 204 174 185 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.12 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 796 7585 0 0 3184 2878 1653 1735 1475 1015 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.3 7.5 0.0 0.0 13.1 9.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.5 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.3 7.6 0.0 0.0 14.3 9.2 0.0 17.9 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS BA BA B B Approach Vol, veh/h 202 275 109 39 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.7 13.1 17.9 15.7 Approach LOS ABBB Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.2 10.0 6.4 13.8 7.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 79.0 22.0 10.0 63.0 34.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 2.8 2.2 5.7 3.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.1 0.1 0.0 2.1 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.3 HCM 2010 LOS B

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak w/o LRT Pre-emption Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Ped Phase/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

Phase Number 24568 Movement EBTL SBTL EBL WBT NBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Recall Mode None Min None Min Min Maximum Split (s) 85 28 16 69 37 Maximum Split (%) 56.7% 18.7% 10.7% 46.0% 24.7% Minimum Split (s) 22 22 10 22 20.5 Yellow Time (s) 44443 All-Red Time (s) 22220 Minimum Initial (s) 44444 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 0 85 0 16 113 End Time (s) 85 113 16 85 0 Yield/Force Off (s) 79 107 10 79 147 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 68 107 10 79 147 Local Start Time (s) 0 85 0 16 113 Local Yield (s) 79 107 10 79 147 Local Yield 170(s) 68 107 10 79 147 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 150 Control Type Actuated-Uncoordinated Natural Cycle 75

Splits and Phases: 3: Ped Phase/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak w/o LRT Pre-emption Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Ped & LRT Phases/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 53 437 0 0 225 91 0 100 0 114 0 21 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1881 1881 0 0 1881 1881 1900 1900 1900 1900 1881 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 475 0 0 245 99 0 109 0 124 0 23 Adj No. of Lanes 120011111010 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 110011000111 Cap, veh/h 376 1502 0 0 440 593 169 177 151 203 0 38 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1792 3668 0 0 1881 1599 1810 1900 1615 1483 0 275 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 475 0 0 245 99 0 109 0 147 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1792 1787 0 0 1881 1599 1810 1900 1615 1758 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 4.9 1.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 4.9 1.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.16 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 376 1502 0 0 440 593 169 177 151 241 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.17 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 459 2499 0 0 877 964 2910 3055 2597 1065 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.6 8.3 0.0 0.0 14.5 9.1 0.0 18.7 0.0 17.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.8 8.4 0.0 0.0 15.6 9.2 0.0 22.2 0.0 19.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS BA BA C B Approach Vol, veh/h 533 344 109 147 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.7 13.7 22.2 19.9 Approach LOS A B C B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 11.9 8.0 16.0 7.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 26.0 4.0 20.0 69.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.8 5.4 3.0 6.9 3.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.8 0.5 0.0 3.1 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.0 HCM 2010 LOS B

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak with LRT Pre-emption Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Ped & LRT Phases/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

Phase Number 24568 Movement EBTL SBTL EBL WBT NBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Recall Mode None Min None Min Min Maximum Split (s) 36 32 10 26 72 Maximum Split (%) 25.7% 22.9% 7.1% 18.6% 51.4% Minimum Split (s) 22 22 10 22 20.5 Yellow Time (s) 44443 All-Red Time (s) 22220 Minimum Initial (s) 44444 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 0 36 0 10 68 End Time (s) 36 68 10 36 0 Yield/Force Off (s) 30 62 4 30 137 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 19 62 4 30 137 Local Start Time (s) 0 36 0 10 68 Local Yield (s) 30 62 4 30 137 Local Yield 170(s) 19 62 4 30 137 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 140 Control Type Actuated-Uncoordinated Natural Cycle 75

Splits and Phases: 3: Ped & LRT Phases/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak with LRT Pre-emption Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Ped Phase/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 53 437 0 0 225 91 0 100 0 114 0 21 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1881 1881 0 0 1881 1881 1900 1900 1900 1900 1881 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 475 0 0 245 99 0 109 0 124 0 23 Adj No. of Lanes 120011111010 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 110011000111 Cap, veh/h 389 1542 0 0 468 615 165 173 147 201 0 37 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1792 3668 0 0 1881 1599 1810 1900 1615 1483 0 275 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 475 0 0 245 99 0 109 0 147 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1792 1787 0 0 1881 1599 1810 1900 1615 1758 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 4.9 1.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 4.9 1.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.16 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 389 1542 0 0 468 615 165 173 147 239 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.16 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 469 4966 0 0 2185 2074 1566 1644 1398 1041 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.4 8.2 0.0 0.0 14.2 8.9 0.0 19.2 0.0 17.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 3.7 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.6 8.3 0.0 0.0 15.2 9.0 0.0 23.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS BA BA C C Approach Vol, veh/h 533 344 109 147 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.5 13.4 23.0 20.5 Approach LOS A B C C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.9 12.0 8.0 16.9 7.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 61.0 26.0 4.0 51.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.8 5.5 3.0 6.9 3.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.0 0.5 0.0 4.0 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.9 HCM 2010 LOS B

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak w/o LRT Pre-emption Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: Ped Phase/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

Phase Number 24568 Movement EBTL SBTL EBL WBT NBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Recall Mode None Min None Min Min Maximum Split (s) 67 32 10 57 41 Maximum Split (%) 47.9% 22.9% 7.1% 40.7% 29.3% Minimum Split (s) 22 22 10 22 20.5 Yellow Time (s) 44443 All-Red Time (s) 22220 Minimum Initial (s) 44444 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000 Walk Time (s) 5 5 5 5 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 0 67 0 10 99 End Time (s) 67 99 10 67 0 Yield/Force Off (s) 61 93 4 61 137 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 50 93 4 61 137 Local Start Time (s) 0 67 0 10 99 Local Yield (s) 61 93 4 61 137 Local Yield 170(s) 50 93 4 61 137 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 140 Control Type Actuated-Uncoordinated Natural Cycle 75

Splits and Phases: 3: Ped Phase/Monticello Ave & City Hall Ave

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak w/o LRT Pre-emption Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 166: Monticello Ave & Freemason St

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 11 49 7 8 44 31 0 34 31 57 41 23 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 13 56 8 9 51 36 0 39 36 66 47 26 Adj No. of Lanes 010010010010 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 115 444 58 74 323 207 0 214 198 190 135 75 Arrive On Green 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.29 0.32 0.31 0.00 0.24 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 183 1387 182 66 1010 646 0 893 824 837 596 330 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 77 0 0 96 00007513900 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1752 0 0 1722 00001717 1763 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.17 0.10 0.09 0.37 0.00 0.48 0.47 0.19 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 617 0 0 558 000041240000 V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.35 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 617 0 0 558 000041240000 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.1 0.0 0.0 18.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.5 24.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.6 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.4 26.6 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B CC Approach Vol, veh/h 77 96 75 139 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.6 19.2 23.4 26.6 Approach LOS B B C C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 28.0 23.0 28.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 23.0 18.0 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.6 4.2 7.0 5.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 22.6 HCM 2010 LOS C

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 166: Monticello Ave & Freemason St

Phase Number 2468 Movement NBTL EBTL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 24 28 23 28 Maximum Split (%) 32.0% 37.3% 30.7% 37.3% Minimum Split (s) 21 28 17 28 Yellow Time (s) 3333 All-Red Time (s) 2222 Minimum Initial (s) 10 10 10 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3333 Minimum Gap (s) 3333 Time Before Reduce (s) 0000 Time To Reduce (s) 0000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 9 16 5 16 Dual Entry No No No No Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 32 4 56 4 End Time (s) 56 32 4 32 Yield/Force Off (s) 51 27 74 27 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 42 11 69 11 Local Start Time (s) 56 28 5 28 Local Yield (s) 0 51 23 51 Local Yield 170(s) 66 35 18 35 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 75 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 70 Offset: 51 (68%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 166: Monticello Ave & Freemason St

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 166: Monticello Ave & Freemason St

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 6 74 10 25 25 38 6 115 43 80 92 16 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 85 12 29 29 44 7 132 50 92 106 18 Adj No. of Lanes 010010010010 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 69 534 72 183 193 235 15 284 107 153 176 30 Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.31 0.34 0.33 0.26 0.23 0.24 0.33 0.33 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 41 1559 209 343 562 686 66 1241 470 766 882 150 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 104 0 0 102 0 0 189 0 0 216 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1809 0 0 1591 0 0 1777 0 0 1798 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.07 0.12 0.28 0.43 0.04 0.26 0.43 0.08 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 675 0 0 566 0 0 406 0 0 360 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 675 0 0 566 0 0 406 0 0 360 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.67 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.1 0.0 0.0 16.4 0.0 0.0 23.2 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.6 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 28.2 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B C C Approach Vol, veh/h 104 102 189 216 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.6 17.1 27.0 28.2 Approach LOS B B C C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.0 28.0 20.0 28.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 23.0 15.0 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.4 4.8 9.0 5.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 1.1 0.4 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.0 HCM 2010 LOS C

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 166: Monticello Ave & Freemason St

Phase Number 2468 Movement NBTL EBTL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 22 28 20 28 Maximum Split (%) 31.4% 40.0% 28.6% 40.0% Minimum Split (s) 21 28 17 28 Yellow Time (s) 3333 All-Red Time (s) 2222 Minimum Initial (s) 10 10 10 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3333 Minimum Gap (s) 3333 Time Before Reduce (s) 0000 Time To Reduce (s) 0000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 9 16 5 16 Dual Entry No No No No Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 58 30 10 30 End Time (s) 10 58 30 58 Yield/Force Off (s) 5 53 25 53 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 66 37 20 37 Local Start Time (s) 53 25 5 25 Local Yield (s) 0 48 20 48 Local Yield 170(s) 61 32 15 32 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 70 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 70 Offset: 5 (7%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 166: Monticello Ave & Freemason St

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 164: Monticello Ave & Charlotte St

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 2 16 5 23 0 86 0 76 21 62 91 0 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 0 1863 1900 1863 1863 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 18 6 26 0 99 0 88 24 71 105 0 Adj No. of Lanes 010110010110 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222022220 Cap, veh/h 67 402 125 524 0 443 0 338 92 378 993 0 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.21 0.53 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 50 1311 408 1381 0 1583 0 1410 385 1774 1863 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 26 0 0 26 0 99 0 0 112 71 105 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1769 0 0 1381 0 1583 0 0 1795 1774 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 4.4 2.5 2.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 4.4 2.5 2.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.08 0.23 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.21 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 594 0 0 524 0 443 0 0 431 378 993 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.19 0.11 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 594 0 0 524 0 443 0 0 431 378 993 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.3 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 19.1 0.0 0.0 28.3 24.2 8.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.1 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.3 1.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.4 0.0 0.0 18.5 0.0 20.3 0.0 0.0 29.7 25.3 8.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B C CCA Approach Vol, veh/h 26 125 112 176 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.4 19.9 29.7 15.5 Approach LOS B B C B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.0 24.0 29.0 46.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 18.0 23.0 40.0 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 6.4 2.8 4.1 5.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 20.6 HCM 2010 LOS C

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 164: Monticello Ave & Charlotte St

Phase Number 12468 Movement SBL NBT EBTL SBT WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 22 24 29 46 29 Maximum Split (%) 29.3% 32.0% 38.7% 61.3% 38.7% Minimum Split (s) 11 23 29 23 29 Yellow Time (s) 44444 All-Red Time (s) 22222 Minimum Initial (s) 5 10 10 10 4 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333 Time Before Reduce (s) 03330 Time To Reduce (s) 00000 Walk Time (s) 7775 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 16 10 11 Dual Entry No No No No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 26 48 72 26 72 End Time (s) 48 72 26 72 26 Yield/Force Off (s) 42 66 20 66 20 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 42 56 4 56 9 Local Start Time (s) 35 57 6 35 6 Local Yield (s) 51 0 29 0 29 Local Yield 170(s) 51 65 13 65 18 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 75 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 65 Offset: 66 (88%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 164: Monticello Ave & Charlotte St

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 164: Monticello Ave & Charlotte St

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 6 47 11 27 0 103 0 152 27 96 134 0 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 0 1863 1900 1863 1863 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 54 13 31 0 119 0 175 31 111 154 0 Adj No. of Lanes 010110010110 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222022220 Cap, veh/h 80 457 102 552 0 475 0 440 78 228 931 0 Arrive On Green 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.50 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 71 1392 312 1329 0 1583 0 1541 273 1774 1863 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 0 0 31 0 119 0 0 206 111 154 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 0 1329 0 1583 0 0 1815 1774 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 7.5 4.1 3.2 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 7.5 4.1 3.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.09 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.15 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 639 0 0 552 0 475 0 0 518 228 931 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.49 0.17 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 639 0 0 552 0 475 0 0 518 228 931 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.5 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.0 16.9 0.0 0.0 26.0 28.4 9.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 7.3 0.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 4.1 2.5 1.7 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.8 0.0 0.0 16.3 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 28.3 35.6 9.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B B CDA Approach Vol, veh/h 74 150 206 265 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.8 17.8 28.3 20.7 Approach LOS B B C C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 26.0 29.0 41.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 20.0 23.0 35.0 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.1 9.5 4.0 5.2 2.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.5 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 21.9 HCM 2010 LOS C

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 164: Monticello Ave & Charlotte St

Phase Number 12468 Movement SBL NBT EBTL SBT WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 15 26 29 41 29 Maximum Split (%) 21.4% 37.1% 41.4% 58.6% 41.4% Minimum Split (s) 11 23 29 23 29 Yellow Time (s) 44444 All-Red Time (s) 22222 Minimum Initial (s) 5 10 10 10 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333 Time Before Reduce (s) 03333 Time To Reduce (s) 00000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 16 10 16 Dual Entry No No No No No Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 55 0 26 55 26 End Time (s) 0 26 55 26 55 Yield/Force Off (s) 64 20 49 20 49 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 64 10 33 10 33 Local Start Time (s) 35 50 6 35 6 Local Yield (s) 44 0 29 0 29 Local Yield 170(s) 44 60 13 60 13 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 70 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 65 Offset: 20 (29%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 164: Monticello Ave & Charlotte St

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 18: Boush St & Bute St

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 17 2 0 25 17 33 1106 7 12 726 6 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 20 2 0 29 20 38 1274 8 14 836 7 Adj No. of Lanes 110110120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 1 282 28 1 174 120 568 2247 14 354 1992 17 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.17 0.18 0.00 0.17 0.18 0.14 0.62 0.62 0.07 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1667 167 1774 1028 709 1774 3606 23 1774 3597 30 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 22 0 0 49 38 625 657 14 411 432 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1833 1774 0 1738 1774 1770 1859 1774 1770 1857 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.9 26.8 26.8 0.4 17.6 17.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.9 26.8 26.8 0.4 17.6 17.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1 0 310 1 0 294 568 1103 1158 354 980 1029 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.07 0.57 0.57 0.04 0.42 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 177 0 310 191 0 294 568 1103 1158 354 980 1029 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 45.4 0.0 0.0 46.0 7.5 14.3 14.3 10.9 16.9 16.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.2 2.1 2.0 0.2 1.3 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.4 13.7 14.3 0.2 8.9 9.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 45.8 0.0 0.0 47.2 7.8 16.4 16.3 11.2 18.2 18.1 LnGrp LOS D D ABBBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 22 49 1320 857 Approach Delay, s/veh 45.8 47.2 16.1 18.0 Approach LOS D D B B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 87.0 0.0 28.0 24.0 78.0 0.0 28.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 81.0 15.0 23.0 19.0 72.0 14.0 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 28.8 0.0 3.3 2.9 19.6 0.0 5.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 15.4 0.0 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.8 HCM 2010 LOS B

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak with Pre-emption Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 18: Boush St & Bute St

Phase Number 12345678 Movement SBL NBTL WBL EBT NBL SBTL EBL WBT Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 15 87 20 28 24 78 20 28 Maximum Split (%) 10.0% 58.0% 13.3% 18.7% 16.0% 52.0% 13.3% 18.7% Minimum Split (s) 10 28 15 27 10 28 10 27 Yellow Time (s) 34333443 All-Red Time (s) 22222222 Minimum Initial (s) 4 15 10 5 4 15 4 5 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 24032403 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 15 15 15 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 130 145 82 102 130 4 82 102 End Time (s) 145 82 102 130 4 82 102 130 Yield/Force Off (s) 140 76 97 125 149 76 96 125 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 140 61 97 110 149 61 96 110 Local Start Time (s) 54 69 6 26 54 78 6 26 Local Yield (s) 64 0 21 49 73 0 20 49 Local Yield 170(s) 64 135 21 34 73 135 20 34 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 150 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 76 (51%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 18: Boush St & Bute St

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak with Pre-emption Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 18: Boush St & Bute St

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 4 13 2 4 21 17 33 1106 7 12 726 6 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 15 2 5 24 20 38 1274 8 14 836 7 Adj No. of Lanes 010010120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 69 191 23 38 138 103 579 2428 15 364 2206 18 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.67 0.67 0.06 0.61 0.61 Sat Flow, veh/h 273 1303 158 76 938 699 1774 3606 23 1774 3597 30 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 22 0 0 49 0 0 38 625 657 14 411 432 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1733 0 0 1713 0 0 1774 1770 1859 1774 1770 1857 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 26.8 26.8 0.4 17.6 17.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 26.8 26.8 0.4 17.6 17.6 Prop In Lane 0.23 0.09 0.10 0.41 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 284 0 0 278 0 0 579 1192 1252 364 1085 1139 V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.52 0.52 0.04 0.38 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 284 0 0 278 0 0 579 1192 1252 364 1085 1139 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.2 0.0 0.0 56.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 12.4 12.4 9.5 14.6 14.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.7 1.6 0.2 1.0 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.4 13.6 14.2 0.2 8.9 9.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.8 0.0 0.0 57.4 0.0 0.0 6.8 14.0 14.0 9.7 15.6 15.6 LnGrp LOS E E ABBABB Approach Vol, veh/h 22 49 1320 857 Approach Delay, s/veh 55.8 57.4 13.8 15.5 Approach LOS EEBB Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 107.0 28.0 24.0 98.0 28.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 101.0 23.0 19.0 92.0 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 28.8 3.6 2.9 19.6 5.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 16.1 0.2 0.1 16.1 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.8 HCM 2010 LOS B

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak w/o Pre-emption Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 18: Boush St & Bute St

Phase Number 124568 Movement SBL NBTL EBTL NBL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 15 107 28 24 98 28 Maximum Split (%) 10.0% 71.3% 18.7% 16.0% 65.3% 18.7% Minimum Split (s) 10 28 27 10 28 27 Yellow Time (s) 343343 All-Red Time (s) 222222 Minimum Initial (s) 4 15 5 4 15 5 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 243243 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 15 15 15 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 34 49 6 34 58 6 End Time (s) 49 6 34 58 6 34 Yield/Force Off (s) 44 0 29 53 0 29 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 44 135 14 53 135 14 Local Start Time (s) 34 49 6 34 58 6 Local Yield (s) 44 0 29 53 0 29 Local Yield 170(s) 44 135 14 53 135 14 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 150 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 70 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 18: Boush St & Bute St

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak w/o Pre-emption Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 18: Boush St & Bute St

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 25 17 0 9 17 18 825 13 23 1019 0 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 29 20 0 10 20 21 951 15 26 1174 0 Adj No. of Lanes 110110120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 1 180 124 1 97 194 380 2140 34 452 2124 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.17 0.18 0.00 0.17 0.18 0.08 0.60 0.60 0.08 0.60 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1028 709 1774 556 1111 1774 3566 56 1774 3632 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 49 0 0 30 21 472 494 26 1174 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1738 1774 0 1667 1774 1770 1853 1774 1770 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.5 17.5 17.5 0.6 23.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.5 17.5 17.5 0.6 23.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1 0 304 1 0 292 380 1062 1112 452 2124 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.06 0.55 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 192 0 304 192 0 292 380 1062 1112 452 2124 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 41.8 0.0 0.0 41.3 9.2 13.1 13.1 8.1 14.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 1.3 1.3 0.2 1.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.3 8.9 9.3 0.3 11.9 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 43.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 9.5 14.4 14.4 8.3 15.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D ABBAB Approach Vol, veh/h 49 30 987 1200 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.0 42.0 14.3 15.3 Approach LOS D D B B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 78.0 0.0 27.0 15.0 78.0 0.0 27.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 72.0 14.0 22.0 10.0 72.0 14.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 19.5 0.0 4.9 2.5 25.8 0.0 3.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.8 HCM 2010 LOS B

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak with Pre-emption Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 18: Boush St & Bute St

Phase Number 12345678 Movement SBL NBTL WBL EBT NBL SBTL EBL WBT Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 15 78 20 27 15 78 20 27 Maximum Split (%) 10.7% 55.7% 14.3% 19.3% 10.7% 55.7% 14.3% 19.3% Minimum Split (s) 10 28 10 27 10 28 10 27 Yellow Time (s) 34433443 All-Red Time (s) 22222222 Minimum Initial (s) 4 15 4 5 4 15 4 5 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 24032403 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 15 15 15 Dual Entry No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 53 68 6 26 53 68 6 26 End Time (s) 68 6 26 53 68 6 26 53 Yield/Force Off (s) 63 0 20 48 63 0 20 48 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 63 125 20 33 63 125 20 33 Local Start Time (s) 53 68 6 26 53 68 6 26 Local Yield (s) 63 0 20 48 63 0 20 48 Local Yield 170(s) 63 125 20 33 63 125 20 33 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 140 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 18: Boush St & Bute St

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak with Pre-emption Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 18: Boush St & Bute St

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 7 18 17 5 9 17 18 825 13 23 1019 0 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 21 20 6 10 20 21 951 15 26 1174 0 Adj No. of Lanes 010010120120 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 54 126 103 54 86 137 394 2343 37 470 2326 0 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.06 0.66 0.66 0.06 0.66 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 158 839 688 159 571 913 1774 3566 56 1774 3632 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 0 0 36 0 0 21 472 494 26 1174 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1685 0 0 1643 0 0 1774 1770 1853 1774 1770 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 17.5 17.5 0.6 23.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 17.5 17.5 0.6 23.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.16 0.41 0.17 0.56 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 283 0 0 276 0 0 394 1163 1218 470 2326 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.41 0.41 0.06 0.50 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 283 0 0 276 0 0 394 1163 1218 470 2326 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.9 0.0 0.0 51.4 0.0 0.0 7.9 11.2 11.2 6.9 12.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.1 1.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 8.9 9.3 0.3 11.8 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.2 0.0 0.0 52.4 0.0 0.0 8.2 12.3 12.2 7.2 13.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D ABBAB Approach Vol, veh/h 49 36 987 1200 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.2 52.4 12.2 13.0 Approach LOS D D B B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 98.0 27.0 15.0 98.0 27.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 92.0 22.0 10.0 92.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 19.5 5.4 2.5 25.8 4.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 18.1 0.2 0.0 17.9 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.1 HCM 2010 LOS B

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak w/o Pre-emption Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 18: Boush St & Bute St

Phase Number 124568 Movement SBL NBTL EBTL NBL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 15 98 27 15 98 27 Maximum Split (%) 10.7% 70.0% 19.3% 10.7% 70.0% 19.3% Minimum Split (s) 10 28 27 10 28 27 Yellow Time (s) 343343 All-Red Time (s) 222222 Minimum Initial (s) 4 15 5 4 15 5 Vehicle Extension (s) 333333 Minimum Gap (s) 333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 243243 Time To Reduce (s) 000000 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 15 15 15 Dual Entry No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 33 48 6 33 48 6 End Time (s) 48 6 33 48 6 33 Yield/Force Off (s) 43 0 28 43 0 28 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 43 125 13 43 125 13 Local Start Time (s) 33 48 6 33 48 6 Local Yield (s) 43 0 28 43 0 28 Local Yield 170(s) 43 125 13 43 125 13 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 140 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 65 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 18: Boush St & Bute St

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak w/o Pre-emption Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 349: Duke St & Bute St

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 26 19 23 5 29 7 11 89 14 22 88 42 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 30 22 26 6 33 8 13 103 16 25 101 48 Adj No. of Lanes 010010010010 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 272 201 203 106 512 116 100 702 103 133 515 226 Arrive On Green 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.39 0.40 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.15 0.16 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 531 519 525 135 1324 299 98 1462 215 162 1072 470 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 78 0 0 47 0 0 132 0 0 174 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1574 0 0 1759 0 0 1775 0 0 1704 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.38 0.33 0.13 0.17 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.28 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 675 0 0 781 0 0 905 0 0 827 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 675 0 0 781 0 0 905 0 0 827 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.6 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 19.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS BBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 78 47 132 174 Approach Delay, s/veh 15.0 14.5 11.3 19.7 Approach LOS BBBB Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.0 40.0 35.0 40.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.0 35.0 30.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 5.1 3.2 8.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 2.0 0.5 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.7 HCM 2010 LOS B

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 349: Duke St & Bute St

Phase Number 2468 Movement EBTL NBTL WBTL SBTL Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 35 40 35 40 Maximum Split (%) 46.7% 53.3% 46.7% 53.3% Minimum Split (s) 27 24 27 24 Yellow Time (s) 3333 All-Red Time (s) 2222 Minimum Initial (s) 15 10 15 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3333 Minimum Gap (s) 3333 Time Before Reduce (s) 0000 Time To Reduce (s) 0000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 12 15 12 Dual Entry No No No No Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 70 30 70 30 End Time (s) 30 70 30 70 Yield/Force Off (s) 25 65 25 65 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 10 53 10 53 Local Start Time (s) 5 40 5 40 Local Yield (s) 35 0 35 0 Local Yield 170(s) 20 63 20 63 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 75 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 55 Offset: 65 (87%), Referenced to phase 4:NBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 349: Duke St & Bute St

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 349: Duke St & Bute St

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 69 26 19 2 20 12 13 88 4 16 145 48 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 80 30 22 2 23 14 15 101 5 18 167 55 Adj No. of Lanes 010010010010 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 375 138 86 63 374 214 128 800 38 87 668 208 Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.34 0.36 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.16 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 854 402 251 26 1091 625 137 1556 73 61 1299 404 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 132 0 0 39 0 0 121 0 0 240 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1507 0 0 1742 0 0 1766 0 0 1764 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.61 0.17 0.05 0.36 0.12 0.04 0.07 0.23 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 599 0 0 701 0 0 966 0 0 912 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 599 0 0 701 0 0 966 0 0 912 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.4 0.0 0.0 15.3 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.2 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS BBAB Approach Vol, veh/h 132 39 121 240 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.2 15.5 9.1 18.3 Approach LOS BBAB Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.0 40.0 30.0 40.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 35.0 25.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 4.4 3.0 10.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 2.4 0.6 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.7 HCM 2010 LOS B

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 349: Duke St & Bute St

Phase Number 2468 Movement EBTL NBTL WBTL SBTL Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 30 40 30 40 Maximum Split (%) 42.9% 57.1% 42.9% 57.1% Minimum Split (s) 27 24 27 24 Yellow Time (s) 3333 All-Red Time (s) 2222 Minimum Initial (s) 15 10 15 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3333 Minimum Gap (s) 3333 Time Before Reduce (s) 0000 Time To Reduce (s) 0000 Walk Time (s) 7777 Flash Dont Walk (s) 15 12 15 12 Dual Entry No No No No Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 23 53 23 53 End Time (s) 53 23 53 23 Yield/Force Off (s) 48 18 48 18 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 33 6 33 6 Local Start Time (s) 5 35 5 35 Local Yield (s) 30 0 30 0 Local Yield 170(s) 15 58 15 58 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 70 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 55 Offset: 18 (26%), Referenced to phase 4:NBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 349: Duke St & Bute St

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 234: Duke St & Brambleton Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 15 809 24 54 1783 108 50 165 16 210 112 24 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1827 1827 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17 932 28 62 2054 124 58 190 18 242 129 28 Adj No. of Lanes 131130110110 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222444 Cap, veh/h 249 2678 855 399 2584 155 154 279 26 151 243 53 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.53 0.54 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 5085 1583 1774 4906 295 1774 1676 159 1740 1455 316 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 17 932 28 62 1416 762 58 0 208 242 0 157 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1695 1583 1774 1695 1811 1774 0 1835 1740 0 1771 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 15.9 0.8 2.2 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 16.7 13.0 0.0 12.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 15.9 0.8 2.2 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 16.7 13.0 0.0 12.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.18 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 249 2678 855 399 1786 954 154 0 306 151 0 295 V/C Ratio(X) 0.07 0.35 0.03 0.16 0.79 0.80 0.38 0.00 0.68 1.60 0.00 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 249 2678 855 399 1786 954 154 0 306 151 0 295 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.9 20.6 6.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 68.9 0.0 67.0 68.5 0.0 57.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.8 3.7 7.0 6.9 0.0 11.6 300.8 0.0 6.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 0.3 7.5 0.3 1.1 0.9 1.8 2.7 0.0 9.5 18.8 0.0 6.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.5 20.9 6.1 14.1 3.7 7.0 75.8 0.0 78.5 369.3 0.0 63.9 LnGrp LOS BC ABAAE EF E Approach Vol, veh/h 977 2240 266 399 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.4 5.1 77.9 249.1 Approach LOS C A E F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 85.0 19.0 31.0 15.0 85.0 19.0 31.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 79.0 13.0 25.0 9.0 79.0 13.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 17.9 15.0 18.7 2.6 2.0 6.8 14.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 35.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 39.4 0.1 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 39.0 HCM 2010 LOS D

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 234: Duke St & Brambleton Ave

Phase Number 12345678 Movement WBL EBTL SBL NBT EBL WBTL NBL SBT Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 15 85 19 31 15 85 19 31 Maximum Split (%) 10.0% 56.7% 12.7% 20.7% 10.0% 56.7% 12.7% 20.7% Minimum Split (s) 11 23 13 31 11 23 13 31 Yellow Time (s) 44444444 All-Red Time (s) 22222222 Minimum Initial (s) 5 10 7 7 5 10 7 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 34333433 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 6666 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 19 11 19 Dual Entry No No No Yes No No Yes No Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 57 72 38 7 57 72 7 26 End Time (s) 72 7 57 38 72 7 26 57 Yield/Force Off (s) 66 1 51 32 66 1 20 51 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 66 140 51 13 66 140 20 32 Local Start Time (s) 56 71 37 6 56 71 6 25 Local Yield (s) 65 0 50 31 65 0 19 50 Local Yield 170(s) 65 139 50 12 65 139 19 31 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 150 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 120 Offset: 1 (1%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 234: Duke St & Brambleton Ave

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 234: Duke St & Brambleton Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 26 1741 47 102 946 80 35 97 16 246 179 46 Number 5 2 12 1 6 16 7 4 14 3 8 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1827 1827 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 30 2006 54 118 1090 92 40 112 18 283 206 53 Adj No. of Lanes 131130110110 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222444 Cap, veh/h 371 2216 712 205 2082 176 241 280 45 236 250 64 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.44 0.45 0.16 0.87 0.87 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.14 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 5085 1583 1774 4779 403 1774 1567 252 1740 1402 361 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 30 2006 54 118 773 409 40 0 130 283 0 259 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1695 1583 1774 1695 1792 1774 0 1818 1740 0 1763 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 51.5 1.6 4.8 7.5 7.6 3.0 0.0 9.6 19.0 0.0 19.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 51.5 1.6 4.8 7.5 7.6 3.0 0.0 9.6 19.0 0.0 19.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.20 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 371 2216 712 205 1477 781 241 0 325 236 0 315 V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.91 0.08 0.58 0.52 0.52 0.17 0.00 0.40 1.20 0.00 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 371 2216 712 205 1477 781 241 0 325 236 0 315 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.0 36.8 7.2 27.8 5.6 5.6 59.2 0.0 58.7 60.5 0.0 55.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 6.7 0.2 11.3 1.3 2.5 1.5 0.0 3.7 122.8 0.0 21.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 0.6 25.3 0.7 2.9 3.5 4.0 1.6 0.0 5.2 17.2 0.0 11.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.4 43.5 7.4 39.1 6.9 8.1 60.7 0.0 62.3 183.3 0.0 76.4 LnGrp LOS BDADAAE EF E Approach Vol, veh/h 2090 1300 170 542 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.2 10.2 61.9 132.2 Approach LOS D B E F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.0 67.0 25.0 31.0 17.0 67.0 25.0 31.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 61.0 19.0 25.0 11.0 61.0 19.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.8 53.5 21.0 11.6 3.2 9.6 5.0 21.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 6.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 33.6 0.1 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 44.8 HCM 2010 LOS D

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 234: Duke St & Brambleton Ave

Phase Number 12345678 Movement WBL EBTL SBL NBT EBL WBTL NBL SBT Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 17 67 25 31 17 67 25 31 Maximum Split (%) 12.1% 47.9% 17.9% 22.1% 12.1% 47.9% 17.9% 22.1% Minimum Split (s) 11 23 13 31 11 23 13 31 Yellow Time (s) 44444444 All-Red Time (s) 22222222 Minimum Initial (s) 5 10 7 7 5 10 7 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333333 Time Before Reduce (s) 34333433 Time To Reduce (s) 00000000 Walk Time (s) 6666 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 19 11 19 Dual Entry No No No Yes No No Yes No Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 1 18 116 85 1 18 85 110 End Time (s) 18 85 1 116 18 85 110 1 Yield/Force Off (s) 12 79 135 110 12 79 104 135 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 12 68 135 91 12 68 104 116 Local Start Time (s) 62 79 37 6 62 79 6 31 Local Yield (s) 73 0 56 31 73 0 25 56 Local Yield 170(s) 73 129 56 12 73 129 25 37 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 140 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 110 Offset: 79 (56%), Referenced to phase 2:EBTL and 6:WBTL, Start of Yellow

Splits and Phases: 234: Duke St & Brambleton Ave

2014 LRT AFTER ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 100 0 65 0 329 94 661 0 0 328 445 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1881 1881 1900 1881 1881 1881 1900 1900 0 0 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 109 0 71 0 358 102 718 0 0 357 484 Adj No. of Lanes 110111120021 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 111111000011 Cap, veh/h 139 146 0 406 426 362 412 1796 0 0 1381 618 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.05 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1792 1881 0 1792 1881 1599 1810 3705 0 0 3668 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 109 0 71 0 358 102 718 0 0 357 484 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1792 1881 0 1792 1881 1599 1810 1805 0 0 1787 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 4.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 15.8 2.2 8.8 0.0 0.0 4.8 18.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 4.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 15.8 2.2 8.8 0.0 0.0 4.8 18.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 139 146 0 406 426 362 412 1796 0 0 1381 618 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.99 0.25 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 406 426 0 406 426 362 723 2913 0 0 1721 770 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 31.9 0.0 22.0 0.0 27.2 10.9 11.1 0.0 0.0 14.8 19.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 44.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 11.4 1.1 4.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 8.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 39.2 0.0 22.2 0.0 71.2 11.2 11.3 0.0 0.0 14.9 23.3 LnGrp LOS D C EBB BC Approach Vol, veh/h 109 429 820 841 Approach Delay, s/veh 39.2 63.1 11.3 19.7 Approach LOS D E B B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.9 33.3 9.5 41.1 20.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 * 6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 34.0 16.0 * 57 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 20.8 6.0 9.8 17.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 6.5 0.2 10.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 26.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak with Pre-emption Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

Phase Number 12468 Movement NBL SBT EBTL NBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Recall Mode None Min None Min None Maximum Split (s) 20 40 20 60 20 Maximum Split (%) 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% Minimum Split (s) 8 22 20 20.5 20 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4 3.5 3 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 2 0.5 0 0.5 Minimum Initial (s) 44444 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000 Walk Time (s) 5555 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry No Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 0 20 60 0 80 End Time (s) 20 60 80 60 0 Yield/Force Off (s) 16 54 76 57 96 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 16 54 65 57 85 Local Start Time (s) 80 0 40 80 60 Local Yield (s) 96 34 56 37 76 Local Yield 170(s) 96 34 45 37 65 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 100 Control Type Actuated-Uncoordinated Natural Cycle 70

Splits and Phases: 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak with Pre-emption Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 65 0 329 94 661 0 0 328 445 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1881 0 1881 1900 1900 0 0 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 71 0 358 102 718 0 0 357 484 Adj No. of Lanes 101120021 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 101000011 Cap, veh/h 458 0 409 481 2059 0 0 1590 711 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.06 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 1792 0 1599 1810 3705 0 0 3668 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 71 0 358 102 718 0 0 357 484 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1792 0 1599 1810 1805 0 0 1787 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 0.0 12.3 1.6 6.1 0.0 0.0 3.5 13.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 0.0 12.3 1.6 6.1 0.0 0.0 3.5 13.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 458 0 409 481 2059 0 0 1590 711 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.00 0.88 0.21 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 499 0 445 884 4837 0 0 3359 1503 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.6 0.0 20.5 6.9 6.6 0.0 0.0 9.8 12.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 16.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 7.3 0.8 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 6.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.7 0.0 37.2 7.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 9.9 13.9 LnGrp LOS B DAA AB Approach Vol, veh/h 429 820 841 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.8 6.8 12.2 Approach LOS C A B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.2 31.6 38.8 18.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 * 6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 54.0 * 77 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 15.8 7.1 14.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 9.7 10.3 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.5 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak w/o Pre-emption Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

Splits and Phases: 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak w/o Pre-emption Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 100 0 84 0 197 113 647 0 0 529 646 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1881 1881 1900 1881 1881 1881 1900 1900 0 0 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 109 0 91 0 214 123 703 0 0 575 702 Adj No. of Lanes 110111120021 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 111111000011 Cap, veh/h 139 146 0 292 307 261 360 2060 0 0 1636 732 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.06 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 Sat Flow, veh/h 1792 1881 0 1792 1881 1599 1810 3705 0 0 3668 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 109 0 91 0 214 123 703 0 0 575 702 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1792 1881 0 1792 1881 1599 1810 1805 0 0 1787 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 4.2 0.0 3.3 0.0 9.6 2.5 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 31.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 4.2 0.0 3.3 0.0 9.6 2.5 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 31.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 139 146 0 292 307 261 360 2060 0 0 1636 732 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.82 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.96 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 387 406 0 387 406 345 643 2777 0 0 1640 734 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 33.5 0.0 27.3 0.0 30.0 9.2 8.5 0.0 0.0 13.0 19.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 11.2 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 23.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.7 0.0 5.0 1.3 3.8 0.0 0.0 3.8 18.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 40.9 0.0 27.9 0.0 41.2 9.7 8.6 0.0 0.0 13.1 43.0 LnGrp LOS D C DAA BD Approach Vol, veh/h 109 305 826 1277 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.9 37.2 8.8 29.6 Approach LOS D D A C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.4 39.9 9.7 48.3 16.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 * 6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 34.0 16.0 * 57 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 33.5 6.2 8.7 11.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.5 0.2 15.2 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.2 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak with Pre-emption Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

Splits and Phases: 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak with Pre-emption Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 84 0 197 113 647 0 0 529 646 Number 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1881 0 1881 1900 1900 0 0 1881 1881 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 91 0 214 123 703 0 0 575 702 Adj No. of Lanes 101120021 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 101000011 Cap, veh/h 300 0 268 420 2459 0 0 2024 906 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.05 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 Sat Flow, veh/h 1792 0 1599 1810 3705 0 0 3668 1599 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 91 0 214 123 703 0 0 575 702 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1792 0 1599 1810 1805 0 0 1787 1599 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 0.0 8.5 1.7 5.1 0.0 0.0 5.5 22.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 0.0 8.5 1.7 5.1 0.0 0.0 5.5 22.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 300 0 268 420 2459 0 0 2024 906 V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.00 0.80 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 434 0 387 760 4208 0 0 2922 1307 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.1 0.0 26.4 4.9 4.2 0.0 0.0 7.4 11.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 7.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 0.0 4.3 0.9 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.7 10.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.7 0.0 33.8 5.3 4.2 0.0 0.0 7.5 12.9 LnGrp LOS C CAA AB Approach Vol, veh/h 305 826 1277 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.1 4.4 10.5 Approach LOS C A B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 43.4 51.0 15.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 * 6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 54.0 * 77 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 24.4 6.1 10.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 13.0 16.1 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 11.0 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes * HCM 2010 computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak w/o Pre-emption Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

Splits and Phases: 3: I-264 WB Off-ramp & Ballentine Blvd

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak w/o Pre-emption Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Ballentine Blvd & I-264 EB Ramp/Westminster Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 395 0 80 4 0 111 0 315 57 228 245 0 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1937 1900 1900 1863 1900 0 1863 1900 1863 1863 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 429 0 87 4 0 121 0 342 62 248 266 0 Adj No. of Lanes 010010020210 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222022220 Cap, veh/h 241 0 49 8 0 246 0 1230 221 379 1043 0 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.11 0.56 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1503 0 305 51 0 1538 0 3092 538 3442 1863 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 516 0 0 125 0 0 0 200 204 248 266 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1808 0 0 1589 0 0 0 1770 1768 1721 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 7.7 6.9 7.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 7.7 6.9 7.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.83 0.17 0.03 0.97 0.00 0.30 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 289 0 0 254 0 0 0 726 725 379 1043 0 V/C Ratio(X) 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.66 0.25 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 289 0 0 254 0 0 0 726 725 379 1043 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.0 0.0 0.0 38.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.6 19.7 42.7 11.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 366.2 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.0 8.6 0.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 37.4 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.9 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 408.2 0.0 0.0 44.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.6 20.6 51.2 11.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS F D CCDB Approach Vol, veh/h 516 125 404 514 Approach Delay, s/veh 408.2 44.9 20.6 30.9 Approach LOS F D C C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 45.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 41.0 16.0 56.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.9 9.7 18.0 9.3 9.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 154.2 HCM 2010 LOS F

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak w/o Pre-emption Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 6: Ballentine Blvd & I-264 EB Ramp/Westminster Ave

Phase Number 12468 Movement SBL NBT EBTL SBT WBTL Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 15 45 20 60 20 Maximum Split (%) 15.0% 45.0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% Minimum Split (s) 8 20 20 20 20 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Minimum Initial (s) 44444 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000 Walk Time (s) 5555 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry No Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 30 85 45 85 65 End Time (s) 45 30 65 45 85 Yield/Force Off (s) 41 26 61 41 81 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 41 15 50 30 70 Local Start Time (s) 45 0 60 0 80 Local Yield (s) 56 41 76 56 96 Local Yield 170(s) 56 30 65 45 85 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 100 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 70 Offset: 85 (85%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Splits and Phases: 6: Ballentine Blvd & I-264 EB Ramp/Westminster Ave

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report AM Peak w/o Pre-emption Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 6: Ballentine Blvd & I-264 EB Ramp/Westminster Ave

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 357 0 93 1 0 230 0 488 100 367 308 0 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1937 1900 1900 1863 1900 0 1863 1900 1863 1863 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 388 0 101 1 0 250 0 530 109 399 335 0 Adj No. of Lanes 010010020210 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222022220 Cap, veh/h 229 0 59 1 0 252 0 1200 246 379 1043 0 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.11 0.56 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1428 0 372 6 0 1578 0 3020 600 3442 1863 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 489 0 0 251 0 0 0 320 319 399 335 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1800 0 0 1584 0 0 0 1770 1757 1721 1863 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 13.1 11.0 9.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 13.1 11.0 9.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.79 0.21 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.34 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 288 0 0 253 0 0 0 726 720 379 1043 0 V/C Ratio(X) 1.70 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 1.05 0.32 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 288 0 0 253 0 0 0 726 720 379 1043 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.0 0.0 0.0 41.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 21.3 44.5 11.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 328.5 0.0 0.0 54.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.0 61.1 0.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 34.2 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 6.7 8.4 5.2 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 370.5 0.0 0.0 96.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.2 23.2 105.6 12.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS F F CCFB Approach Vol, veh/h 489 251 639 734 Approach Delay, s/veh 370.5 96.1 23.2 63.2 Approach LOS F F C E Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 1 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 45.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 41.0 16.0 56.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.0 15.1 18.0 11.6 17.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 0.0 3.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 126.1 HCM 2010 LOS F

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak w/o Pre-emption Page 1 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase 6: Ballentine Blvd & I-264 EB Ramp/Westminster Ave

Phase Number 12468 Movement SBL NBT EBTL SBT WBTL Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize Yes Yes Recall Mode Max Max Max Max Max Maximum Split (s) 15 45 20 60 20 Maximum Split (%) 15.0% 45.0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% Minimum Split (s) 8 20 20 20 20 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Minimum Initial (s) 44444 Vehicle Extension (s) 33333 Minimum Gap (s) 33333 Time Before Reduce (s) 00000 Time To Reduce (s) 00000 Walk Time (s) 5555 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry No Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 30 85 45 85 65 End Time (s) 45 30 65 45 85 Yield/Force Off (s) 41 26 61 41 81 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 41 15 50 30 70 Local Start Time (s) 45 0 60 0 80 Local Yield (s) 56 41 76 56 96 Local Yield 170(s) 56 30 65 45 85 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 100 Control Type Pretimed Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 85 (85%), Referenced to phase 2:NBT and 6:SBT, Start of Green

Splits and Phases: 6: Ballentine Blvd & I-264 EB Ramp/Westminster Ave

2014 AFTER LRT ANALYSIS Synchro 8 Light Report PM Peak w/o Pre-emption Page 2